y£2L2m  l \ Tomas 


THE 

Weldon  N.  Edwards 

and 

Marmadeke  J.  Hawkins 
Libraries 


Purchased  by 


TRINITY  COLLEGE  LIBRARY 

May.  1921 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 
Duke  University  Libraries 


https://archive.org/details/considerationsin01sout 


• 1 r I1  r,  ^ 3 G> 

'V . *j  . / ■ 

Cdu  t>twJL  i » )’!<•  i 

CONSII 

IN 

FAVOR  OF  THE  NOMINATION 

OP 

STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS 

BY 

THE  CHARLESTON  CONTENTION, 


A SOUTHERN  DEMOCRAT. 


Differences  of  opinion  extending  as  well  to  measures  as  to  men  have  for 
years  past  divided  the  Democratic  party.  Such  differences  of  opinion  ex- 
isted in  1852  and  in  1856,  and  they  exist  now.  The  Baltimore  conven- 
tion happily  adjusted  those  differences  in  1S52,  and  the  Cincinnati  Conven- 
tion profited  by  the  example  in  1856.  The  result  was,  a united  Democra- 
cy, and  the  election  of  a Democratic  President.  The  Charleston  conven- 
tion, if  it  be  true  to  these  lessons  of  wise  experience,  as  it  undoubtedly  will 
be,  will  settle  existing  differences  of  opinion,  and  prepare  the  way  for  a 
triumph  in  1800,  as  brilliant  as  the  triumphs  of  1852  and  1856.  There 
never  was  a period  in  the  history  of  the  Democratic  party  which  more  im- 
peratively demanded  than  the  present  demands  mutual  forbearance  and 
concession.  Harmony  can  be  maintained  in  no  other  way,  and  without 
harmony  success  will  be  impossible.  The  Opposition  are  more  formidable 
in  1860  than  they  were  in  1852  or  in  1856.  Whoever  thinks  differently 
is  not  wise,  nor  yet  a fit  counselor  for  the  times.  The' Republican  party, 
young  as  it  is,  has  made  rapid  strides  in  power,  more  rapid,  although  com 
fined  to  one  section,  than  any  political  organization  which  has  grown  up 
in  our  country  for  the  last  quarter  of  a century.  That  party,  compact, 
united,  and  untiring,  holds  to-day  every  northern  State,  except  California 
and  Oregon.  Some  of  them  it  holds  by  a doubtful  tenure,  as  Connecticut, 
Indiana,  Iowa,  Wisconsin,  and  Minnesota,  and  one,  Illinois,  by  a plurality 
vote.  That  tenure  may  be,  will  be  made  certain,  strong,  and  unimpeach- 
able, if  the  Charleston  Convention  fall  short  of  its  duty.  The  election  of 
a Republican  to  the  Presidency — which  all,  except  the  discontented  spirits 
who  would  hail  it  as  a means  and  an  end  whereby  the  Union  may  be  de- 
stroyed, would  deeply  deplore,  and  will  strive  earnestly  to  avert — will  be- 
come a “fixed  fact,”  unless  that  Convention  shall  sternly  and  persistently 
refuse  to  wander  off  from  the  old  land-marks  of  the  Democratic  party.  Its 
bounden  duty  is  to  harmonize  the  Democratic  party,  and  give  it  strength, 
confidence,  power  1 To  do  this,  it  will  be  necessary  to  discard  all  new  tests 
and  impracticable  issues,  and  present  to  the  country  a candidate  whom  the 

Vlb'e.7 


2 


Democracy  of  every  section  can  cordially  support ; a candidate  whose 
name  and  position  will  give  assurance  of  success.  The  voice  of  the  De- 
mocracy everywhere  demands  the  selection  of  the  most  available  candidate, 
and  the  perils  which  surround  us  forewarn  us,  that  now,  as  in  1852  and 
1856,  all  preferences  and  all  prejudices  must  yield  to  political  necessity. 
So  believing,  the  writer,  with  no  wish  or  intention  to  disparage  the  claims 
of  other  distinguished  Democrats,  ventures  to  present  “ considerations  in 
favor  of  the  nomination  of  Stephen  A.  Douglas.”  He  trusts  that  they 
will  be  received  by  whoever  may  read  them  with  the  same  spirit  of  candor 
and  fairness  in  which  he  purposes  to  express  them. 


THE  PROSPECT  BEFORE  US. 


The  Electorial  College  of  1860,  assuming  that  Kansas  will  not  be  ad- 
mitted into  the  Union  as  a State  prior  to  the  Presidential  election,  will  con 
sist  of  303  votes',  of  which  152  will  be  necessary  to  a choice.  These  votes 
are  apportioned  among  the  several  States  as  follows: 

. FREE  STATES. 


Maine 8 

New  Hampshire 5 

Vermont 5 

Massachusetts 13 

Rhode  Island 4 

Connecticut 6 

New  York 35 

New  Jersey 7 

Pennsylvania 27 

Ohio 23 


Indiana 13 

Illinois 11 

Michigan 6 

Wisconsin 5 

Iowa 4 

Minnesota 4 

California 4 

Oregon 3 

Total,  18  States 183 


SLAVE  STATES. 


Delaware 3 

Maryland 8 

Virginia 15 

North  Carolina 10 

South  Carolina 8 

Georgia 10 

Florida 3 

Alabama 9 

Mississippi 7 

Louisiana 6 


Texas 4 

Tennessee 12 

Kentucky 12 

Arkansas 4 

Missouri 9 

Total,  15  States  120 

Add  18  free  States 183 

Whole  number  of  votes. . . . 303 


The  Democratic  candidate,  whoever  he  may  be,  will  receive  the  vote 
of  every  southern  State,  except  it  may  be  that  of  Ma'yland.  We  shall  as- 
sume, however,  that  the  South  will  vote  as  a unit,  and  give  the  Democratic 
candidate  120  of  the  303  votes  of  the  Electoral  College.  Of  the  free 
States,  California  and  Oregon  only  can  be  claimed  as  reliably  Democratic. 
The  vote  of  those  two  States,  in  addition  to  the  vote  of  the  entire  South, 
make  the  Democratic  strength  127  votes— 25  less  than  a majority.  To 
secure  that  majority  the  Democratic  candidate  must  carry  Pliuois  with  11 
votes,  Indiana  with  13  votes,  and  Minnesota  with  4 votes;  in  all  28  votes. 
In  that  event  his  vote  will  stand — 


Fifteen  slave  States 

California 

votes. 

Illinois 

it 

Indiana 

it 

Minnesota 

it 

Oregon 

li 

Total 


\* 


155 


3 


Thus  it  appears,  that  the  loss  of  Maryland,  Illinois,  Indiana,  or  Min- 
nesota, each  of  which  is  doubtful,  and  the  vote  of  each  depending  much 
upon  who  may  be  the  nominee  of  the  Charleston  Convention,  unless  the 
loss  could  be  made  up  elsewhere,  would  result  in  the  election  of  the  Re- 
publican candidate  ; while  the  vote  of  Oregon  only  can  be  spared  from  our 
table.  Sanguine  Democrats  claim,  however,  the  27  votes  of  Pennsylvania 
and  the  7 votes  of  New  Jersey.  Add  those  to  the  States  named  previously, 
and  the  Democratic  column  will  foot  up  189  votes — 37  more  than  a ma- 
jority. If  Pennsylvania  can  be  counted  upon  for  any  nominee  of  the 
Charleston  convention,  then  we  can  do  without  the  votes  of  Illinois,  Indi- 
ana, and  Minnesota.  The  vote  of  Pennsylvania  added  to  the  120  votes  of 
the  South,  the  4 votes  of  California,  and  3 votes  of  Oregon,  make  154 
votes,  and  will  elect  a President.  And  if  New  Jersey  with  7 votes  can  be, 
as  is  claimed  by  some,  relied  on  in  any  contingency,  then  Oregon  may  be 
lost,  and  the  field  yet  be  won.  It  matters  little,  indeed,  so  far  as  the  de- 
feat of  the  Republicans  is  concerned',  whose  colors  shall  be  run  up  at 
Charleston,  if  these  suppositious  statements  of  Democratic  strength,  which 
are  hourly  rung  in  our  ears,  be  reliable.  But  unfortunately  the  fact  stares 
us  in  the  face,  that  of  the  183  votes  in  the  free  States,  there  are  only  seven 
beyond  dispute  from  our  present  stand-point.  Hence  it  is  vain — nay,  more — 
it  is  suicidal  to  raise  the  hope,  that  “all  is  well,  and  victory  certain;”  let 
the  Democracy  nominate  whom  they  please.  It  is  useless  to  disguise — it 
cannot  be  disguised,  really,  that  the  Democratic  party  is  in  imminent  dan- 
ger. These  are  not  the  times,  therefore,  for  empty  boasts  nor  for  striking 
displays  of  partisan  zeal.  There  is  too  much  at  stake.  The  safety  of  a 
great  National  Party  depends,  and  it  may  be  that  the  destiny  of  the  Re- 
public will  depend,  upon  the  action  of  the  Charleston  Convention.  The 
part  of  wisdom  is,  then,  for  Democrats  to  counsel  with  one  another  with 
their  judgments  cool,  and  to  reason  upon  probabilities;  not  to  be  swayed 
by  passion  or  led  off  by  heated  imaginings. 

Let  us  see  what  are  the  probabilities  of  Democratic  success  in  Pennsyl- 
vania and  New  Jersey.  Mr.  Buchanan  carried  Pennsylvania  by  a bare 
majority  over  all  others,  of  657  votes;  and  the  popular  vote  of  New  Jersey, 
whose  electoral  vote  he  obtained,  showed  a majority  against  him  of  5,510. 
The  Opposition  carried  Pennsylvania  at  the  State  election,  in  1859,  by 
over  17,000  majority,  and  New  Jersey,  by  a majority  of  1,600  votes. 
Giving  all  due  consideration  to  recent  indications  of  a change  of  opinion, 
the  heavy  majority  by  which  the  Opposition  swept  the  State  a year  ago, 
when  the  Democracy  were  high  in  hopes,  does  not  encourage  the  convic- 
tion that  Pennsylvania  will  stand  in  1860  where  she  stood  in  1856.  New 
Jersey  looks  much  more  hopeful,  and  may  vote  for  the  Democratic  candi- 
date even  if  Pensylvania  should  not,  although  they  usually  vote  alike.  P 
must  be  borne  in  mind  that  these  speculations,  as  to  the  probable  result 
of  the  Presidential  election,  have  been  based  so  far  upon  the  hypothesis 
that  Mr:  Douglas  will  not  be  nominated.  With  him,  as  the  Democratic 
candidate,  our  views  as  to  the  vote  of  this  or  that  free  States  would  b. 
radically  changed,  because  we  have  full  faith  that  he  can  command  votes 
enough  in  the  free  States  to  put  his  election  beyond  contingency.  We  have 
just  as  strong  faith  that  no  other  candidate  can  certainly  secure  more 
than  127  electoral  votes,  although  we  have  set  down  155.  There  is  not 
a single  free  State  of  the  five  which  voted  for  Mr.  Buchanan  in  1856,  ex- 
cept California,  which  it  can  be  reasonably  said  the  Democracy  can  cany 
with  any  other  candidate.  California,  Illinois,  Indiana,  New  Jersey,  ana 


7 


4 


Pennsylvania,  were  those  five  States.  They  gave  Mr.  Buchanan  82  elec- 
toral votes,  and  elected  him.  Here  it  must  be  remembered  that  three  of 
the  five  States  which  gave  him  their  electoral  votes,  cast  a decided  popular 
vote  against  Mr.  Buchanan;  California,  a majority  of  3,491  votes;  Illinois, 
28,285,  and  New  Jersey,  5,510  votes.  His  majority  in  Indiana  over  Fre- 
mont and  Fillmore  was  only  1,709,  in  an  aggregate  of  over  235,000 
votes.  The  loss  consequently  of  those  four  States  in  the  Electoral  Col- 
lege, which  would  have  been  certain  had  the  Opposition  run  a single  can- 
didate with  35  votes,  or  the  loss  of  the  2 7 votes  of  Pennsylvania,  would 
have  been  Mr.  Buchanan’s  defeat.  What  man  can  say  certainly  that  any 
other  candidate  than  Mr.  Douglas  can  carry  any  three  of  those  five  States  ? 
Where  is  the  candidate  who  can  carry  Illinois  and  Indiana,  but  Mr.  Doug- 
las? Where  is  the  candidate  who  would  he  stronger  in  New  Jersey,  New 
York,  and  Pennsylvania,  or  even  so  strong?  Would  he  not  be  more  likely 
to  reconcile  differences  of  opinion  in  those  States  than  any  other  candi- 
date— more  likely  to  cement  a cordial  union  between  disputants  over  the 
dead  issues  of  the  past,  “ Lecompton”  and  “ Anti-Lecompton  ?”  Such 
would  seem  to  be  the  conclusion  of  those  who  give  judgment  full  play 
and  refuse  to  listen  to,  or  be  guided  by  prejudice  and  passion. 

An  impartial  review  of  politics  in  the  free  States  must  satisfy  intelligent 
men,  that  the  Northwestern  States  present  the  most  encouraging  evidences 
of  all  the  free  States  of  Democratic  ascendency  and  power.  With  Con- 
necticut, New  Jersey,  New  York,  and  Pennsylvania,  all  of  which  are  claim- 
ed by  many  as  certain  for  the  Democracy,  doubtful,  to  say  the  least,  with 
any  candidate,  the  Northwest  is  the  field  whereon  the  Democracy  must  and 
will  battle  most  hopefully.  If  the  victory  can  not  be  won  on  that  field,  it 
may  not  be  won  at  all ; for  there  is  the  power  of  the  country,  and  there 
the  tide  of  battle  sets.  Let  us  take  a survey  of  that  field  on  which  depends 
so  much. 

THE  NORTHWEST. 

The  election  returns  show  that  the.  entire  vote  of  the  United  States  (it 
will  be  larger  in  November  next)  is  4,127,000.  The  entire  Democratic 
vote  is  2,096,000;  of  which  1,447,000  votes  are  given  by  the  free  States,, 
and  649,000  by  the  slave  States.  Of  the  1,447,000  votes  in  the  free  States 
701,000  are  cast  by  the  Democracy  of  the  Northwest.  Hence,  it  appears 
that  the  seven  Northwestern  States,  Illinois,  Indiana,  Iowa,  Michigan,  Min- 
nesota, Ohio,  and  Wisconsin,  cast  a larger  Democratic  vote  than  the  entire 
South,  and  nearly  as  large  a Democratic  vote  as  all  the  other  free  States, 
This  is  the  summary  of  the  latest  and  fullest  election  returns  in  the  several 
States — the  vote  being  stated  in  round  numbers — and  while  it  proves  that 
the  Democratic  masses  are  in  the  free  States,  it  teaches  ns  that  there  is  a 
power,  and  a power  constantly  growing,  in  the  Northwest  which  cannot  he 
overlooked,  much  less  despised. 

In  1848,  and  again  in  1852,  the  Democratic  candidate  for  the  Presiden- 
cy received  the  electoral  vote  of  every  Northwestern  State;  but  in  1856, 
four  of  the  then  six  States  voted  for  the  Republican  candidate,  and  the  pop- 
ular vote  of  a fifth — Illinois — showed,  as  we  have  seen,  a- majority  against 
Mr.  Buchanan  of  over  28,000  votes.  Of  the  four  States  which  voted  for 
Fremont,  Mr.  Douglas,  if  he  be  nominated  at  Charleston,  will  carry  Iowa 
and  Wisconsin,  certainly,  and  most  probably  Ohio.  Iowa  gave  Fremont 
43  954  votes,  Fillmore  9,180,  and  Buchanan  36,170  votes,  in  1858,  show- 

vu-nl 


5 


ing  a majority  against  Buchanan  of  16,964.  The  Republican  majority  in 
1859,  was  2,964  votes.  Wisconsin  gave  Fremont  66,090  votes,  Fillmore 
5S0,  and  Buchanan  52,843  votes,  in  1856,  showing  a majority  against 
Buchanan  of  13,82*7  votes.  In  1859  the  Republican  majority  was  3,900. 
Ohio  gave  Fremont  1S7,497  votes,  Fillmore  28,121,  and  Buchanan  170,- 
874  votes,  in  1856  ; showing  a majority  against  Buchanan  of  44,744  votes. 
In  1859  the  Republican  majority  was  16.600.  Such  is  the  exhibit  made 
by  the  Democracy  in  Iowa,  Ohio,  and  Wisconsin,  in  1859,  when  they  were 
hampered  and  burdened  with  “Lecompton,”  and  “anti-Lecompton,”  and 
'with  demands  for  re-opening  the  African  slave  trade,  and  stronger  demands 
for  a Federal  slave  code  for  the  Territories.  Under  like  circumstances  Min- 
nesota was  lost  by  the  Democrats  in  1859.  Now,  if  the  Charleston  Con- 
vention will  adhere  to  the  Cincinnati  Platform,  will  leave  the  question  of 
slavery  in  the  Territories  to  be  settled  by  the  people,  and  finally  by  the  ju- 
diciary, and  then  nominate  Mr.  Douglas,  we  have  no  doubt  he  will  carry 
Iowa,  and  Wisconsin,  Minnesota,  and  Ohio.  To  sum  up,  with  such  a plat- 
form and  Mr.  Douglas,  the  Democracy  can  and  will  sweep  Illinois,  Indiana, 
Iowa,  Minnesota,  Ohio,  and  Wisconsin. 

It  will  be  asked,  ‘‘why  will  not  any  other  candidate  run  just  as  well  as 
Mr.  Douglas,  in  the  Northwest?”  The  answer  is  obvious.  Mr.  Doltglas’ 
home  is  in  the  Northwest,  and  the  people  are  proud  of,  and  love  him. 
Nine-tenths  of  the  Democracy  are  for  him  to  a man,  heartily,  and  for  his 
principles  and  opinions.  The  delegates  to  Charleston  from  every  one  of 
those  States,  are  instructed  to  vote  for  him,  and  stand  by  him  faithfully. 
They  represent  more  than  one-third  of  the  Democracy  of  the  Union.  Think 
you,  opponents  of  Mr.  Douglas,  that  another  candidate  will  be  so  accepta- 
ble to  that  people?  Do  you  not  think  that  if  Mr.  Douglas  shall  be  set 
aside  under  such  circumstances,  the  Democracy  of  the  Northwest  will  re- 
gard it  as  proscription,  such  as  was  signally  rebuked  by  the  people  of  Illi- 
nois in  1858 — proscription  alike  of  Mr.  Douglas  and  of  them?  If  you 
do  not,  you  greatly  deceive  yourselves. 

The  Northwestern  States  have  sixty-six  electoral  votes,  and,  as  we  have 
shown,  more  thau  700,000  Democratic  voters.  Under  the  next  apportion- 
ment the  electoral  vote  of  that  section  will  nearly  equal  the  electoral  vote 
of  the  South,  which,  under  the  present  apportionment,  numbers  one  hun- 
dred and  twenty.  Illinois  and  Indiana  will  each  outrank  Virginia  in  the 
Presidential  election  of  1864 ; Michigan  and  Wisconsin  will  both  be  stronger 
in  the  Electoral  College,  then,  than  Mississippi  or  South  Carolina,  and  Iowa 
will  run  ahead  of  Louisiana  or  Maryland,  and  be  the  equal  in  power,  per- 
haps, of  North  Carolina,  or  Georgia.  This  powerful  section  of  the  Con- 
federacy has  never  had  a President  but  for  a single  month — General  Har- 
rison. The  South  and  the  free  States  of  the  East  or  Centre  have  always 
had  precedence,  and  the  only  time  that  the  Northwest  was  honored  with 
the  selection  of  one  of  her  sons  as  a Democratic  candidate,  in  1848,  he 
received  her  entire  electoral  vote,  and  yet  was  defeated.  The  South  had 
much  to  do  with  that  result.  Delaware,  Florida,  Georgia,  Kentucky,  Loui- 
siana, Maryland,  North  Carolina,  and  Tennessee,  all  voted  against  General 
Cass.  Six  of  the  eight  States  voted,  however,  for  Fraklin  Pierce  in 
1852.  Had  they  given  their  votes  to  the  Democracy  in  1848,  Lewis  Cass 
would  have  been  elected  President.  The  people  of  the  Northwest,  always 
divided  heretofore  among  several  candidates,  are  now  united  on  one  can- 
didate. From  Ohio  the  largest  to  Minnesota  the  smallest  of  those  States, 
the  Democracy  have  spoken  with  one  voice  for  Stephen  A.  Douglas, 


6 


Even  Indiana,  which  turned  the  scale  against  him  at  Cincinnati,  in  1856,  has 
instructed  the  delegation  to  Charleston  from  that  State  to  vote  for  him  as  a 
unit , and  that,  too,  by  an  overwhelming  majority  in  the  State  Convention. 
There  is  no  division ; all  is  harmonious  and  enthusiastic,  and  whatever  a 
handful  of  malignants  may  assert,  the  truth  stands  out  boldly  and  unde- 
niably, that  the  Democracy  of  the  Northwest,  as  a united  delegation  at 
Charleston  will  attest,  know  no  other  candidate,  and  will  be  content  with 
no  other  candidate  than  Mr.  Douglas. 

THE  FREE  STATES  EAST  OF  THE  OHIO. 

All  the  free  States,  with  the  exception  of  Oregon,  perhaps,  are  committed 
to  the  principles  of  Mr.  Douglas.  The  Democracy  of  a large  majority 
of  them  stand  squarely  upon  his  platform,  as  in  New  England,  New 
Jersey,  and  the  Northwest.  The  Democracy  of  California,  New  York, 
and  Pennsylvania,  substantially  hold  the  same  position.  With  Mr. 
Douglas  as  a candidate,  it  stands  to  reason,  then,  that  the  Democracy 
in  all  the  free  States  will  be  stronger  than  with  another  candidate, 
especially  with  another  candidate  widely  differing  from  them  on  all  the 
questions  of  the  day.  He  is  stronger  by  thousands  of  votes  in  Connecti- 
cut, New  Jersey,  New  York,  and  Pennsylvania,  than  any  other  candidate 
can  be.  The  people  are  with  him  heart  and  soul.  And,  if  either  of  these 
States  can  be  carried  by  the  Democracy,  the  victory  must  be  won  under 
his  banner.  No  other  banner  heads  in  that  direction.  Such  is  the  testi- 
mony of  their  Democracv,  Why,  then,  hesitate  to  tread  in  the  path  of 
duty  and  right?  Why  talk  or  think  of  the  nomination  of  a candidate 
where  all  will  be  at  hazard,  and  probably  lost,  where  a candidate  may  be 
had  whose  name  is  a tower  of  strength  in  the  free  States,  and  gives  assur- 
ance of  success  ? That  is  the  question  which  every  southern  Democrat 
should  put  to  himself.  That  is  the  question  which  the  Democracy  of  the 
free  States  have  no  dispute  about.  They  kuow  the  strength  of  Stephen 
A.  Douglas,  and,  hence,  they  eagerly  advocate  his  nomination.  They  pre- 
fer Mr.  Douglas  to  any  other  candidate,  first,  because  his  principles  are 
their  principles;  and  second,  because  they  have  confidence  that  with  him 
for  their  leader  the  battle  will  be  won.  With  another  candidate  doubt  and 
distrust  will  cramp  their  energies.  With  Mr.  Douglas,  courage  and  en- 
thusiasm will  sweil  their  hearts,  aud  nerve  their  arms.  There  is  the  secret 
of  his  over-shadowing  popularity  in  the  free  States. 

MR.  DOUGLAS’  STRENGTH. 

In  the  event  of  Mr.  Douglas’  nomination  by  the  Charleston  Convention, 
as  to  which  there  should  be  no  hesitation,  he  will  receive  the  electoral  vote 
of  the  following  States  : 


Alabama 9 

Arkansas 4 

California 4 

Delaware 3 

Florida 3 

Georgia 10 

Illinois 11 

Indiana 13 

Iowa 4 

Kentucky 12 

Louisiana 6 

Maryland 8 

Minnesota 4 


Mississippi. 7 

Missouri 9 

North  Carolina 10 

Ohio 23 

Oregon 3 

South  Carolina 8 

Tennessee 12 

Texas 4 

Virginia 15 

Wisconsin. 5 

Total 187 


• t 


7 


One  hundred  and  eighty-seven  electoral  votes  without  counting  Connec- 
ticut, New  Jersey,  New  York,  or  Pennsylvania,  Connecticut  gave  a ma- 
jority against  Mr.  Buchanan  in  1856,  of  10,395  votes.  Since  then  the 
largest  majority  for  the  Opposition  was  1,800  votes,  and  at  the  recent 
election  it  was  reduced  to  537  votes.  The  Democracy  of  that  State  stood 
firmly,  as  they  have  always  stood,  by  the  Cincinnati  'Platform,  and  Popu- 
lar Sovereignty  in  the  Territories.  So  have  the  Democracy  of  New  Jersey, 
and  there,  too,  the  Opposition  strength  has  been  broken  since  1856.  Then 
the  majority  against  Mr.  Buchanan  was  over  5,510,  while  in  1859,  it  was 
reduced  to  1,800  votes.  We  repeat,  one  hundred  and  eighty-seven  electo- 
ral votes  will  be  secured  for  Mr.  Douglas  should  he  be  nominated  at 
Charleston.  Such  a result  will  crush  Republicanism.  Such  a result  is 
not  only  probable,  but  certain.  The  Democracy  can  secure  that  result 
with  no  other  candidate,  nor  have,  indeed,  a reasonable  ground  of  success. 

THE  CINCINNATI  CONVENTION. 

Inasmuch  as  the  opposition  to  the  nomination  of  Mr.  Douglas  comes 
mainly  from  the  South,  we  wish  to  recur  to  the  proceedings  of  the  Con- 
vention which  nominated  James  Buchanan  for  the  Presidency.  We  shall 
there  find  much  that  is  suggestive  of  inquiry  and  reflection. 

Those  who  are  familiar  with  the  proceedings  of  the  Cincinnati  Conven- 
tion will  recollect,  that,  on  the  first  ballot,  Mr.  Buchanan  received  only 
thirty-four  votes  from  the  South,  and  that  the  remainder  were  cast  in  the 
proportion  of  seventy-four  to  twelve  for  Mr.  Pierce  and  Mr.  Douglas  res- 
pectively. The  South  was  for  standing  by  the  northern  candidates  who 
had  borne  the  banner  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  contest,  in  preference  to  a 
Northern  candidate  whose  greater  availability  was  pressed  by  his  friends 
on  the  ground,  that  he  had,  owing  to  his  absence  from  the  country,  taken 
no  part  in  that  contest.  When  Mr.  Buchanan  obtained  a majority  on 
the  16th  ballot,  and  Mr.  Douglas’  name  (in  obedience  to  his  letter  to  Mr. 
Richardson,  of  Illinois)  was  withdrawn,  his  vote  from  the  South  was 
forty-seven.  While  on  the  same  ballot,  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina, 
Alabama,  Mississippi,  Kentucky,  Missouri,  Arkansas,  Florida,  and  Texas 
voted  solid,  and  Geoigia  cast  eight  votes  for  Mr.  Douglas — seventy-four 
in  all.  His  entire  Northern  vote  on  the  same  ballot  was  only  forty-nine. 
Thus  does  the  record  prove,  that  first,  Mr.  Pierce,  and  second,  Mr.  Douglas, 
were,  because  of  their  connection  with  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Act,  more  ac- 
ceptable to  the  South,  while  Mr.  Buchanan  was,  for  the  opposite  reason, 
more  acceptable  to  the  North.  Mr.  Avery,  of  North  Carolina,  Gov.  Man- 
ning, of  South  Carolina,  Mr.  Gardner,  of  Georgia,  Mr.  Chapman,  of  Ala- 
bama, Mr.  Clayton,  of  Mississippi,  Mr.  Harris,  of  Missouri,  Mr.  Preston, 
of  Kentucky,  Mr.  Flournoy,  of  Arkansas,  and  Mr.  Ward,  of  Texas,  ail 
bore  testimony  to  the  fact  when  called  on  to  cast  the  votes  of  their  res- 
pective States  on  the  17th  ballot.  It  is  only  necessary  to  say,  that  allusion 
is  not  made  to  these  facts  with  any  view  to  disparage  Mr.  Buchanan,  but 
merely  to  fix  the  Southern  record,  so  that  the  country  may  understand  it. 

The  question  arises,  what  has  Mr.  Douglas  done  since  June,  1856,  when 
the  South  passed  by  Mr.  Buchanan  and  cast  seventy-four  votes  for  him 
in  the  Cincinnati  Convention — not  coldly  and  grudgingly,  but  cordially, 
heartily,  enthusiastically — to  forfeit  Southern  confidence?  Where  is  the 
vote,  where  is  the  speech,  where  the  opinion  on  which  he  shall  be  con- 
demned ? Do  his  opinions  as  to  the  question  of  slavery  in  the  Territories 
render  him  unworthy  of  southern  support  ? Then,  he  was  unworthy  of 


8 


southern  support  in  1856,  for  he  has  held  the  same  opinions  consistently 
from  1848  to  the  present  day.  Nor  were  they  or  have  they  been  hid  un- 
der a bushel.  The  debates  in  the  Senate,  and  his  public  speeches,  attest 
his  devotion  to  the  principle  of  Popular  Sovereignty.  He  maintained  it 
when  the  Compromise  Measures  of  1S50  were  under  discussion.  He  re- 
iterated it  again  and  again,  in  the  great  debate  in  the  Senate  on  the  Kan- 
sas-Nebraska  bill,  in  1854.  There  is  no  disputing  the  fact;  it  is  a part  of 
the  records  of  the  country.  The  South  understood  these  things  in  1856, 
and  yet  the  South  strove  to  elevate  Mr.  Douglas  to  the  Presidency.  Why 
find  fault  with  him  now?  He  has  not  changed.  He  stands  in  1860 
where  he  stood  in  1856 — aye,  where  he  stood  in  1854,  1850,  and  1848. 
He  stands  where  northern  men  and  southern  men  stood  in  1S4S,  when 
they  accepted  the  “ Nicholson  Letter”  of  Gen.  Cass,  and  where  they  stood 
in  1850,  and  1854,  and  again  in  1856.  He  stands  where  Mr.  Buchanan 
stood  in  1856,  when  he  declared  that  “the  people  of  a territory  like 

THOSE  OF  A STATE  SHALL  DECIDE  FOR  THEMSELVES  WHETHER  SLAVERY  SHALL 

or  shall  not  exist  within  their  limits.”  Yet  the  cry  in  some  quarters 
is  “ crucify  him,  crucify  him  !” 

Would  not  the  bitterest  of  Mr.  Douglas’  assailants  cheerfully  advocate 
the  nomination  of  Daniel  S.  Dickinson,  of  New  York,  of  John  C.  Breck- 
inridge, of  Kentucky,  of  Howell  Cobb,  or  Alexander  H.  Stephens,  of 
Georgia,  of  James  L.  Orr,  of  South  Carolina,  of  Judah  P.  Benjamin,  of 
Louisiana,  of  Thomas  G.  Pratt,  of  Maryland,  or  Thomas  L.  Clinuman,  of 
North  Carolina,  if  not  as  a first,  as  a second  choice?  Does  any  man  doubt 
it?  Let  us  see  what  these  and  each  of  these  Representative  men  of  the 
Democratic  party  have  had  to  say  on  the  doctiine  of  Popular  Sovereignty. 

On  the  14th  of  December,  1 S47,  Mr.  Dickinson  introduced  resolutions 
in  the  Senate  with  respect  to  the  annexation  of  Territory.  He  spoke  to 
the  resolutions  on  the  12th  day  of  January,  1848.  He  said: 

“The  resolution  declares  that  the  domestic  policy  of  the  people  of  a Territory 
shall  be  left  with  them;  and  if  that  power  resides  in  Congress,  as  is  contended,  it 
should  he  delegated  to  the  people  of  the  Territory,  and  be  exercised  by  them.”  * * 

“Whatever  power  may  or  may  not  rest  in  Congress  under  the  Constitution,  that 
instrument  could  not  take  from  the  people  of  the  Territories  tue  right  to  prescribe 
their  own  domestic  roLicy;  nor  has  it  attempted  any  such  office.” — Appendix  Cong. 
Globe , vol.  19,  p.  88. 


Extract  of  the  speech  of  John  C.  Breckinridge,  of  Kentucky , in  the  House 
of  Representatives,  March  23,  1854. 

“Among  the  many  misrepresentations  sent  to  the  country  by  some  of  the  enemies 
of  this  bill,  perhaps  none  is  more  flagrant  than  the  charge  that  it  proposes  to  legis- 
late slavery  into  Kansas  and  Nebraska.  Sir,  if  the  bill  contained  such  a feature,  it 
would  not  receive  my  vote.  The  right  to  establish  involves  the  correlative  right  to 
prohibit,  and  denying  both  I wovld  vote  for  neither.”  * * * * 

“The  effect  of  the  repeal,  [of  the  Missouri  compromise,]  therefore,  is  neither  to 
establish  nor  to  exclude,  slavery  but  to  leave  the  f uture  condition  of  the  Territories  de- 
pendent wholly  upon  the  action  of  the  inhabitants,  subject  only  to  such  limitations  as  the 
Federal  Constitution  may  impose.”  * * * “It  will  be  observed  that  the  right  of 

the  people  to  regulate  in  their  own  way  all  their  domestic  institutions  is  left  vjholly  un- 
touched, except  that  whatever  is  done  must  be  done  in  accordance  with  the  Consti- 
tution— the  supreme  law  for  us  all.” — App.  Cong.  Globe,  ls<  Sess.,  34 th,  Cong.,  p.  44. 

Extract  of  the  speech  of  Howell  Cobb,  of  Georgia , delivered  at  Westches- 
ter, Pennsylvania , September  19,  1856. 

“But  those  who  hold  that  the  Territorial  Legislature  cannot  pass  a law  prohibit- 
ing slavery,  admit  that  unless  the  Territorial  Legislature  pass  laws  for  its  protection. 


9 


slavery  'will  not  go  there.  Therefore , practically  a majority  of  the  people  repre- 
sented in  the  Territorial  Legislature  decides  the  question.  Whether  they  decide  it 
by  prohibiting  it,  according  to  the  one  doctrine,  or  by  refusing  to  pass  laws  to  pro- 
tect it,  as  contended  for  by  the  other  party,  is  immaterial.  The  majority  of  the 
people  by  the  action  of  the  Territorial  Legislature  will  decide  the  question  ; and  all 
must  abide  the  decision  when  made.” 


Extract  of  the  speech  of  Alexander  H.  Stephens,  of  Georgia , in  the  House 
of  Representatives,  February  1 7,  1854. 

“ The  whole  question  of  slavery  was  to  be  left  to  the  people  of  the  Territories, 
whether  north  or  south  of  36°  30',  or  any  other  line.  * * * . .* 

“It  was  based  upon  the  truly  republican  and  national  policy  of  taking  this  dis- 
turbing element  out  of  Congress  and  leaving  the  whole  question  of  slavery  in  the 
Territories  to  the  people  there  to  settle  it  for  themselves.  And  it  is  in  vindication 
of  that  new  principle — then  established  for  the  first  time  in  the  history  of  our  Gov- 
ernment—in  the  year  1850,  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century,  that  we,  the 
friends  of  tbe'Nebraska  bill,  whether  from  the  North  or  South,  now  call  upon  this 
House  and  the  country  to  carry  out  in  good  faith,  and  give  effect  to  the  spirit  and 
intent  of  those  important  measures  of  territorial  legislation.”  [ Append . Cong.  Globe, 
vol.  29,  p.  195.] 

Again,  on  the  17th  January,  1856,  he  said  : 

“I  am  willing  that  the  Territorial  Legislature  may  act  upon  the  subject  when 
and  how  they  may  think  proper." — Append.  Cong.  Globe,  vol.  33,  p.  62. 


Extract  of  the  speech  of  James  L.  Orr,  of  South  Carolina , in  the  House 
of  Representatives,  December  11,  1856. 

“Now,  the  legislative  authority  of  a Territory  is  invested  with  a discretion  to 
vote  for  or  against  the  laws.  We  think  they  ought  to  pass  laws  in  every  Territory, 
when  the  Territory  is  open  to  settlement  and  slaveholders  go  there,  to  protect  slave 
property.  But  if  they  decline  to  pass  such  law,  what  is  the  remedy?  None,  sir, 
if  the  majority  of  the  people  are  opposed  to  the  institution;  and  if  the}'  do  not  de- 
sire it  ingrafted  upon  their  Territory,  all  they  have  to  do  is  simply  to  decline  to  pass 
laws  in  the  Territorial  Legislature  for  its  protection,  and  then  it  is  as  well  excluded 
as  if  the  pjower  was  invested  in  the  Territorial  Legislature  to  prohibit  it." — Cong. 
Globe,  vol.  34,  p.  103. 


Extract  of  the  speech  of  Judah  P.  Benjamin,  of  Louisiana , in  the  Senate , 

May  25,  1854, 

“ We  find,  then,  that  this  principle  of  the  independence  and  self-government  of 
the  people  in  the  distant  Territories  of  the  confederacy  harmonize  all  these  conflict- 
ing opinions,  and  enables  us  to  banish  from  the  Halls  of  Congress  another  fertile 
source  of  discontent  and  excitement." — Append.  Cong.  Globe,  vol.  29,  p.  *167. 


Extract  of  the  speech  of  Thomas  G-.  Pratt,  of  Maryland , in  the  Senate, 

July  30,  1850. 

“Mr.  President:  As  this  amendment  is  up,  (Mr.  Norris’,)  I hope  I may  be  allowed 
to  say  a few  words,  so  that  my  constituents  can  understand  my  position.  The  great 
doctrine  of  the  South,  as  I understand  it,  and  the  only  true  ground  upon  which  the 
South  can  stand,  is  the  doctrine  of  non-intervention.  Now,  what  I understand  by 
non-intervention  is  the  denial  of  the  Executive  and  legislative  authority  of  the  Fede- 
ral Government  of  all  povier  over  the  subject  of  slavery,  an.yvjhere  and  everywhere. 
That  is  the  non-intervention  upon  which  I have  been  taught  to  rest  the  rights  of  the 
South.  This  is  the  non-intervention  upon  which  I am  now  willing  to  rest  them — 
that  neither  the  Executive  nor  legislative  branches  of  the  Federal  Government  have 
the  power,  in  ant  way  whatever,  to  interfere  with  the  subject  of  domestic  slavery  any- 
where. And  I am,  therefore,  perfectly  willing  that  the  amendment,  [restricting  the 
Territorial  Legislature  from  passing  any  law  establishing  or  prohibiting  African 
slavery,]  which  was  originally  adopted,  should  be  stricken  out,  as  proposed  by  my 
friend  from  New  Hampshire,  [Mr.  Norris.] 


10 


“But  there  is  another  reason  which  it  seems  to  me  must  render  this  provision,  in 
the  eye  of  every  one,  inoperative,  if  it  continue  in  the  bill.  You  have  this  morning 
adopted  an  amendment  by  which  the  Territorial  government  establishing  by  this  bill 
is  not  to  operate,  in  pnesenti,  within  the  larger  portion  of  the  territory  claimed  as 
Kew  Mexico.  Therefore,  in  consequence  of  that  restriction,  there  could  be  no  legis- 
lation in  reference  to  the  subject  of  slavery  within  that  Territory  at  tile  present 

TIME. 

“ AVitli  regard  to  the  other  Territory,  Utah,  slaves  are  already  held  there;  and  if 
you  give  to  the  people  of  that  Territory  power  to  regulate  it,  which  they  would  have 
if  this  clause  is  stricken  out,  they  mould  legislate  in  favor  of  the  southern  institution 
zn  which  we  are  interested.  I,  therefore,  for  one,  as  a southern  man,  standing  up  for 
the  rights  of  the  South  as  much  as  any  member  here,  am  willing  that  this  clause 
should  be  stricken  out,  more  particularly  when  it  will  gain  some  votes  for  the  bill.” 
App.  Cong,  Globe,  vol.  xxii.,  part  2 , p.  1464. 


Extract  of  the  speech  of  Thomas  L.  Clingman,  of  North  Carolina , in  the 
Senate , February  23,  1859. 

“I  did  not,  when  I got  up,  intend  to  say  a word  about  it;  but  having  been  an  ac- 
tor in  those  scenes;  having  read  and  heard  many  speeches  on  the  subject,  I think  it 
proper  to  these  gentlemen  from  the  North  to  say  that,  so  far  as  I know,  I never  heard 
it  denied  but  that  Congress  was  going  to  abandon  to  the  Territories  the  power  of  leg- 
islation UPON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  SLAVERY  AND  ALL  QUESTIONS  CONNECTED  WITH  IT.  AAre  of 
the  South  contended  that  we  had  the  right  to  legislate,  and  ought  to  protect;  but  we 
came  to  the  conclusion  that,  on  the  whole,  we  would  rather  trust  the  Territory  than 
Congress.  Congress,  we  knew,  was  against  us ; whenever  the  subject  was  up,  a ma- 
jority were  voting  for  the  proviso — [ Wilmot]  ; and  we  thought,  further,  that  if  a 
majority  of  the  Territory  were  against  us,  any  legislation  here  was  futile.  While,  by 
sending  an  army  to  Boston  you  could  bring  away  a runaway  negro  against  the  will 
of  the  people,  you  could  not  expect  to  enforce  a system  on  a Territory  hostile  to  it. 
I think  we  aeted  wisely  in  turning  it  over  to  the  Territory.” — Cong.  Globe,  part  2, 
2d  Sess.,  Both  Cong.,  p.  1264. 


Will  the  South  reject  R.  M.  T.  Hunter,  of  Virginia,  for  the  opinions 
which  he  expressed  in  1854,  coincident  with  the  opinions  of  Mr.  Douglas  ? 
Hear  the  Senator  from  Virginia  in  his  exposition  of  the  principles  of  the 
Kansas-Nebraska  hill: 

Extract  of  a speech  of  R.  M.  T.  Hunter,  of  Virginia,  in  the  United  States 
Senate,  February  24,  1854. 

“The  bill  provides  that  the  Legislatures  of  these  Territories  shall  have  power  to 
legislate  over  all  rightful  subjects  of  legislation,  consistently  with  the  Constitution. 
And  if  they  should  assume  powers  which  are  thought  to  be  inconsistent  with  the  Con- 
stitution, the  courts  will  decide  that  question  wherever  it  may  be  raised.  There  is  a 
difference  of  opinion  among  the  friends  of  this  measure  as  to  the  extent  of  the  limits 
which  the  Constitution  imposes  upon  the  Territorial  Legislatures.  This  bill  proposes 
to  leave  these  differences  to  the  decision  of  the  courts.  To  tliat  tribunal  I am  willing- 
to  leave  this  decision,  as  it  was  once  before  proposed  to  be  left  bj-  the  celebrated 
compromise  of  the  Senator  from  Delaware,  [Mr.  Clayton,]  a measure  which,  accord- 
ing to  roy  understanding,  was  the  best  compromise  which  was  offered  upon  this  sub- 
ject of  slavery.  I say,  then,  that  I am  willing  to  leave  this  point,  upon  which  the 
friends  of  the  bill  are  at  difference,  to  the  decision  of  the  courts.” — Appendix  Cong. 
Globe,  lsf  Sess.,  33 d Cong.,  vol.  29,  p.  224. 

If  that  be  not  heresy,  then  Mr.  Douglas  needs  no  forgiveness,  for  he 
said  precisely  what  Mr.  Hunter  said  in  1854,  that  the  question  of  slavery 
in  the  Territories  is  a judicial  question,  to  be  determined  by  the  courts. 

And  General  Lane,  of  Oregon,  what  says  the  South  to  him  ? Is  he 
sound  and  acceptable?  He  should  be,  aud  undoubtedly  is.  Well,  what 
is  his.  record  ? Why,  when  the  doctrine  of  popular  sovereignty,  or  the 
right  of  the  people  in  the  Territories,  like  those  in  the  States,  “to  form  and 


11 


regulate  their  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way,”  was  generally  ap- 
proved by  the  Democracy  of  the  country,  in  a speech  at  Concord,  New 
Hampshire,  in  February,  1856,  he  said  : 

“ Gentlemen,  I desire  to  say  to  you,  that  the  principle  incorporated  in  the  Kansas- 
Nebraska  bill,  is  the  very  principle  in  defence  of  which  your  forefathers  entered  the 
service  of  the  country  in  the  Revolutionary  war;  for  the  American  colonies,  two 
years  previous  to  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  asserted  this  same  principle  we 
now  find  incorporated  in  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill. 

“Upon  an  examination  you  will  find  that  the  Declaration  of  Rights,  made  October 
14,  1714,  asserts  that  the  people  of  the  several  colonies  ‘ are  entitled  to  the  free  and  ex- 
clusive powers  of  legislation  in  their  several  provincial  legislatures  in  all  eases  of 
internal  policy.’  This  was  refused  by  the  Crown,  but  reasserted  by  our  forefathers. 
Upon  this  issue  the  battles  of  the  Revolution  were  fought;  by  the  blood  of  our  fore- 
fathers this  principle  of  self-government  was  established.  This  right,  refused  by  the 
King,  was  secured,  consecrated,  and  established  by  the  best  blood  that  ever  flowed 
in  the  veins  of  man.  Would  you  now  refuse  to  the  people  of  the  Territories  the 
rights  your  noble  sires  demanded  of  the  Crown  and  won  by  their  blood,  thus  placing 
yourselves  in  opposition  to  the  right  of  self-government  in  the  Territories,  thereby  occu- 
pying the  very  position  towards  the  Territories  that  George  HI.  did  to  the  colonies? 
The  simple  question  involved  here  is,  ‘are  the  people  capable  of  regulating  their 
internal  affairs,  or  must  Congress  regulate  those  affairs  for  them  V It  is  strictly 
the  doctrine  of  Congressional  non-intep.vention.  Now,  if  that  idea  is  the  correct 
one;  if  it  is  true  that  the  American  people  are  capable  of  self-government,  then  the 
principles  of  the  Kansas- Nebraska  bill  are  right,  and  opposition  to  that  bill  is  wrong; 
consequently  dangerous  to  the  best  interest  of  the  country.” 

Has  Mr.  Douglas  asserted,  or  does  he  assert,  the  principle  more  broadly  ? 
Why,  the  article  in  Harper’s  Magazine,  which  has  been  so  much  objected 
to  by  southern  men,  does  but  elaborate  the  dogma  which  General  Lank 
stated  in  his  Concord  speech. 

Is  there  a southern  Democrat  to  whom  the  nomination  of  Franklin 
Pierce  would  not  be  acceptable  ? In  his  special  message  to  Congress,  on 
Kansas  affairs,  of  January  24,  1S56,  Mr.  Pierce  said: 

“The  act  to  organize  the  Territories  of  Nebraska  and  Kansas,  was  a manifesta- 
tion of  the  legislative  opinion  of  Congress  on  two  great  points  of  constitutional  con- 
struction, [the  first  has  no  bearing  here,]  ‘■that  the  inhabitants  of  any  such  Territory , 
considered  as  an  inchoate  State , are  entitled,  in  the  exercise  of  self-government,  to 
decide  for  themselves  what  shall  be  their  own  domestic  institutions,  subject  only  to 
the  Constitution,  and  the  latvs  enacted  by  Congress  under  it,  and  the  power  of  the 
existing  States  to  decide,  according  to  the  provisions  and  principles  of  the  Consti- 
tution, at  what  time  the  territory  shall  be  received,  as  a State,  into  the  Union.’  ” 

Mr.  Alfred  Iverson,  of  Georgia,  now  a Senator  of  the  United  States, 
hut  at  the  time  a member  of  the  House  of  Kepresentatives,  on  the  26th 
day  of  July,  1848,  made  a speech  in  that  body,  which  is  a clear  exposition 
of  the  subject  of  slavery  in  the  Territories.  It  presents  it  practically,  and 
shows  the  folly  of  wrangling  over  rights  and  suppositious  rights  iu  the 
Territories,  when,  no  matter  what  the  federal  legislation,  whether  prohibi- 
tory or  protective,  the  question  of  slavery  depends  upon  the  will  of  the  peo- 
ple, and  resolves  itself  into  an  economic  question.  Mr.  Iverson  said : 

“Now,  Sir,  whether  the  people  in  their  tep.p.itorial  capacity,  can  constitutional- 
ly, or  rightfully,  exclude  slavery,  I am  willing  to  leave  to  the  decision  of  the  Su- 
preme Court,  which  many  gentlemen  contend  is  the  proper  and  constitutional  tribunal 
for  its  decision,  or  to  the  consideration  and  judgment  of  the  people  themselves.,  It 
is  a principle  in  human  nature,  as  powerful  as  universal,  that  political  action  of  com- 
munities will  be  regulated  and  controlled  by  the  interests  of  the  parties  concerned. 
If,  therefore,  it  shall  appear  that  slave  labor  may  be  profitably  employed  in  these 
new  Territories  of  the  Union,  and  the  people  are  left  free  to  act,  they  will  adopt  the 
institution  of  slavery.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  it  shall  be  found  that  the  climate  and 
soil  are  not  adapted  to  the  profitable  employment  of  slave  labor,  no  slaves  will 


12 


EVER  FIND  TIIEIR  WAY  INTO  TOE  COUNTRY,  HOWEVER  WIDE  TOE  DOOR  MAY  BE  OPENED  FOR 

their  admission.  All  that  the  South, 'therefore,  can,  or  ought  to  ask,  is  that  the 
people  of  the  Territories  be  left  to  decide  this  most  important  question  for  them- 
selves. ******  **** 

“Let,  therefore,  this  exciting,  distracting,  disturbing  subject,  be  left  to  the  judg- 
ment and  decision  of  those  who  will  be  most  deeply  interested  in  it,  and  affected  by 
it.  There  it  will  be  coolly  considered  and  properly  decided,  and,  as  a Southern 
man,  I am  willing  to  trust  the  decision  and  abide  the  result.  Let  it  be  kept  out  of 
the  halls  of  Congress,  for  here  and  here  only,  will  the  exercise  of  this  dangerous 
and  disputed  power,  put  this  experiment  of  a Federal  Union  to  the  severest 
test." — Appendix  Congressional  Globe,  vol.  19,  p.  966. 

That  is  just  Mr.  Douglas’  doctrine ; no  more,  no  less.  Yet,  Mr.  Iverson 
cannot  support  him.  Why?  He  has  repudiated  his  opinions  of  1848  as 
heretical,  and  demands  that  Mr.  Douglas  shall  brand  his  with  heresy  also. 

THE  DRED  SCOTT  CASE. 

But,  say  the  assailants  of  Mr.  Douglas,  the  Supreme  Court  decided,  in 
the  Dred  Scott  Case,  that  a Territorial  Legislature  has  no  power  to  exclude 
or  inhibit  slavery,  directly  or  indirectly.  The  Court  certainly  did  not  so 
decide.  There  is  nothing  in  the  Opinion  of  the  Court,  nor  in  the  separate 
opinions  of  the  several  judges,  to  warrant  any  such  statement.  The 
writer  has  read  all  the  opinions  time  and  again,  but  has  never  discovered 
that  the  point  was  decided  at  all.  And  the  leading  counsel  in  the  case, 
Mr.  Reverdy  Johnson,  whose  argument  was  the  basis,  indeed,  of  the 
Court’s  opinion,  denies  emphatically  that  the  Court  decided  the  question, 
or  passed  any  opinion  upon  it.  Why,  if  the  Court  did  so  decide,  did  Chief 
Justice  Taney,  in  speaking  of  the  different  modes  of  governing  the  Territo- 
ries, say : 

“In  other  instances  it  would  be  more  advisable  to  commit  the  powers  of  self-gov- 
ernment to  the  people  who  bad  settled  in  the  Territory,  as  being  most  competent  to  de- 
termine what  ioas  best  for  their  interests.” — 19  Howard,  p.  449. 

And  why,  if  the  decision  were,  as  is  alleged,  condemnatory  of  Mr.  Doug- 
las’ opinion  as  to  the  powers  of  the  Territorial  Legislature,  do  we  find  this 
remarkable  language  in  the  separate  opinion  of  Mr.  Justice  Campbell  ? 

“ I admit  [said  he]  that  to  mark  the  bounds  for  the  jurisdiction  of  the  government 
within  the  Territory,  and  of  its  power  with  respect  to  persons  and  things  within  the 
municipal  divisions  it  has  created,  is  a work  of  delicacy  and  difficulty,  and,  in  a 
great  measure,  is  beyond  the  cognizance  of  the  judicial  department  of  that  govern- 
ment. How  much  municipal  power  may  be  exercised  by  the  people  of  a Territory, 
before  their  admission  into  the  Union,  the  courts  of  justice  cannot  decide.  This  must 
depend  for  the  most  part  on  political  considerations , which  cannot  enter  a determina- 
tion of  a case  of  law  or  equity.” — p.  514,  515. 

Mr.  Douglas  has,  at  no  time,  nor  in  any  place,  uttered  a word  deroga- 
tory of  the  Supreme  Court,  or  its  decision.  He  was  one  of  the  first  to  de- 
fend both  the  one  and  the  other.  He  defended  the  decision  in  the  “ Dred 
Scott  case,”  in  a speech  at  Springfield,  within  a few  months  after  its  deliv- 
ery— in  June,  1857.  He  denied  then,  as  he  denies  now,  that  the  Supreme 
Court  decided  that  slavery  exists  in  the  Territories  “by  virtue  of  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States.”  He  admitted  then,  as  he  admits  now,  that 
their  owners  have  a right  to  take  slaves  into  a Territory,  but  denies  that  as 
property  slaves  areeutitled  to,  or  should  receive  any  greater  favor  or  pro- 
tection than  any  other  species  of  property.  He  holds  that  all  property, 
slaves  included,  is  subject  to  the  local  law;  and  that  the  laws  of  the  Terri- 
torial Legislature,  with  respect  to  slaves,  as  well  as  other  property,  are  for 


-I  o 

io 

judicial  construction,  and  the  final  arbitrament  of  the  Supreme  Court, 
Whenever  that  tribunal  shall  decide,  as  it  never  has  decided,  that  the  Leg- 
islature of  a Territory  has  not  the  same  power  in  respect  to  slaves  as  prop- 
erty as  it  has  over  other  property,  Mr.  Douglas  will  cheerfully  acquiesce  in 
the  decision,  and,  if  it  need  be,  will  exert  the  whole  power  of  the  Govern- 
ment to  carry  it  into  effect.  He  has  so  declared  again  and  again,  especially 
in  his  great  speech  in  the  Senate,  on  the  23d  day  of  February,  1859.  Mean- 
while he  will  stand  by  the  principle  to  which  the  Democratic  party  is 
solemnly  pledged,  of  “ non-intervention  by  Congress  with  slavery  in 
State  and  Territory,  or  in  the  District  of  Columbia.”  He  forcibly 
illustrated  his  position  in  his  reply  to  Mr.  Seward,  in  the  Senate,  on  the 
29th  day  of  February,  1S60.  Here  is  what  he  said : 

“Kansas  has  adopted  a free  State  constitution;  New  Mexico  has  established  a slave 
Territory.  I am  context  with  both.  If  the  people  of  New  Mexico  want  slavery,  let 
them  have  it,  and  I never  will  vote  to  repeal  their  slave  code.  If  Kansas  does  not  want 
slavery,  I will  not  help  anybody  to  force  it  on  her.  Let  each  do  as  it  pleases.  When 
Kansas  comes  to  the  conclusion  that  slavery  will  suit  her,  and  promote  her  interest 
better  than  the  prohibition,  let  her  pass  her  own  slave  code;  1 will  not  pass  it  fob 
her.  Whenever  New  Mexico  gets  tired  of  her  code,  she  must  repeal  it  for  herself ; I 
will  not  repeal  it  for  her.  Non-intervention  by  Congress  with  slavery  in  the  Ter- 
ritories is  the  platform  on  which  I stand.” 

THE  LECOMPTON  QUESTION. 

AVe  shall  not  disturb  nor  revive  a dead  issue.  Indeed,  we  should  not 
allude  to  the  Kansas  controversy  were  it  not  that  Mr.  Douglas’  difference 
with  the  body  of  his  party  in  Congress,  as  to  the  admission  of  Kansas  un- 
der the  Lecompton  Constitution,  is  used  by  his  opponents  to  fasten  upon 
him  the  odium  of  a disorganizes  He  need  not  he  ashamed  of,  nor  has  he 
any  apology  to  offer  for  his  part  in  that  eventful  struggle.  It  was  an  hon- 
est, manly,  straight-forward  part,  was  based  on  principle,  and  the  result 
proved  that  he  was  right.  It  was  not  the  Constitution  of  the  people.  It 
was  in  fraud  of  their  rights,  and  they  rejected  it  by  10,000  majority.  Hear 
the  testimony  of  one  of  the  most  distinguished  of  its  supporters — Senator 
Hammond,  of  South  Carolina.  In  a speech  at  Barnwell  Court-House,  in 
his  State,  on  the  29th  of  October,  1858,  Mr.  Hammond  said: 

“ Through  the  most  disgusting  as  well  as  tragic  scenes  of  force  and  fraud , tlie  Tei-| 
ritory  of  Kansas  at  last  came  before  Congress  for'admission  as  a State,  with  what  is 
known  as  the  Lecompton  Constitution,  embodying  slavery  among  its  provisions. 
But  at  the  same  time  the  convention,  by  an  ordinance,  demanded  of  the  United 
States  some  twenty-three  millions  of  acres  of  land,  instead  of  the  four  millions  usu- 
ally allowed  to  new  States  containing  public  lands.  It  was  almost  certain  that  a 
majority  of  the  people  of  Kansas  were  opposed  to  this  constitution , but  would  not 
vote  on  it;  and  this  additional  nineteen  millions,  which,  if  allowed,  would  probably 
have  kept  them  again  from  the  recent  polls,  was  what  the  South  was  expected  to 
pay  for  that  worthless  slavery  clause,  which  would  have  been  annulled  as  soon  as 
Kansas  was  admitted. 

“ I confess  my  opinion  was , that  the  South  herself  should  hick  that  constitution  out 
of  Congress.  But  the  South  thought  otherwise.  'When  the  bill  for  its  adoption  was 
framed  with  what  is  called  the  Green  Proviso,  I strenuously  objected  to  it,  and  felt 
very  much  disposed  to  vote  against  the  whole,  but  again  gave  up  to  the  South,  which 
accepted  it  by  acclamation.  ****** 

“The  only  principle  involved  in  this  whole  Kansas  affair,  if  an  affair  so  rotten 
from  beginning  to  end  can  have  a principle  at  all,  was  this:  AVould  Congress  admit 
a slave  State  into  the  Union?  The  Senate  said  yes.  The  House,  by  adopting  the 
Crittenden  substitute,  said  yes,  if  we  are  assured  that  a majority  of  the  people  of 
the  State  are  in  favor  of  it.  For  this  substitute  all  the  opposition  voted  in  both 
Houses,  so  that  every  member  of  Congress,  of  all  parties,  first  and  last,  committed 


14 


themselves  to  the  principle  and  policy  that  a State  shoald  be  admitted  into  the  Union 
with  or  without  slavery,  according  to  the  will  of  its  own  people ; thus  re-enacting  one 
feature  of  the  Kansas  and  Nebraska  bill.  I should  myself  have  been  willing  to  rest 
here  and  let  Kausas  rest  also.  Whatever  there  was  of  principle  or  honor  in  the  mat- 
ter was  secured  by  the  votes  already  given.” 

And  yet  Mr.  Douglas  must  be  ostracised,  because  be  opposed  the  Le- 
compton  Constitution  which  a leading  advocate  declares  to  his  own  State, 
and  to  the  South,  was  rotten  from  beginning  to  end  1 There  is  not, 
there  cannot  be  such  rank,  foul,  shameless  injustice. 

POPULAR  SOVEREIGNTY  IN  THE  TERRITORIES. 

It  is  no  purpose  of  the  writer  to  discuss  the  principle  of  Popular  Sover- 
eignty. Its  vindication  will  be  found  in  the  extracts  of  the  speeches  of  dis- 
tinguished statesmen,  which  have  been  already  grouped  together.  It  needs 
no  better  or  sounder  argument  to  support  it  than  Daniel  S.  Dickinson,  of 
New  York,  John  0.  Breckinridge,  of  Kentucky,  James  L.  Orr,  of  South 
Carolina,  Alfred  Iverson,  of  Georgia,  Joseph  Lane,  of  Oregon,  Frank- 
lin Pierce,  of  New  Hampshire,  and  President  Buchanan,  have  presented. 
They  have  defended  it  as  manfully  as  Mr.  Douglas  himself.  So  let  it 
rest. 

Here  we  wish  to  call  attention  to  a fact  which  is  worth  remembering. 
Popular  Sovereignty  has  made  slavery  legal  in  New  Mexico  and  Arizona, 
and  extended  it  as  high  up  as  the  latitude  of  38°  North.  All  over  that 
wide  expanse  of  country  slavery  may  plant  itself.  And  yet,  in  1848  and 
1850,  the  South  only  demanded  its  extension  to  36°  30',  and  were  willing 
to  have  it  inhibited  north  of  that  line.  That  was  the  ultimatum  even  of 
the  Nashville  Convention.  But  the  complaint  is,  that  the  South  has  lost 
California  and  Kansas — the  wildest  dreamer  never  considered  it  probable 
that  Nebraska  would  he  a slave  State.  Lost  them;  how?  Neither  are 
adapted  to  slave  labor,  aud  slavery  can  never  be  a permanency  anywhere 
except  in  a planting  region.  Cotton,  the  sugar-cane,  rice,  tobacco,  and 
tropical  productions  are  necessaay  to  slavery.  Wherever  these,  or  any 
one  of  them,  can  be  made  the  staple  of  a country,  there  slavery  will 
go  and  flourish.  It  will  not  advance  otherwise.  And,  now,  if  there  were 
territory,  as  there  is  not,  adapted  to  slave  labor,  how  could  it  be  secured 
to  slavery?  There  are  not  enough  slaves  in  the  South  to  cultivate  the 
lands  now  demanding  slave  labor.  Labor  is  scarce  in  the  South  to-day — • 
scarce  because  there  are  not  slaves  enough.  Hence,  the  proposal  to  open 
the  African  slave  trade.  Why  then  distract  and  divide  a great  Party  with 
issues  which  have  no  practical  bearing  and  no  utility  ? It  is  of  no  im- 
portance whatever  when  the  question  ofj  slavery  shall  be  settled  in  the  Ter- 
ritories. If  the  soil  and  climate  be  not  adapted  to  slavery,  it  can  never  get 
a foothold;  and  if  they  be  adapted  to  it,  no  human  power  can  prevent  its 
introduction.  Kansas,  adjoining  a slave  State,  with  laws  for  the  protection 
of  slavery  as  stringent  as  the  laws  of  Missouri  or  Alabama,  has  never  con- 
tained more  than  two  or  three  hundred  slaves,  if  so  many,  in  a population 
of  sixty  or  eighty  thousand  souls.  Why?  The  country  was  not  intended 
for  or  adapted  to  slavery.  New  Mexico  has  legalized  slavery,  and  yet  there 
are  no  slaves  in  New  Mexico,  and  none  will  be  taken  there,  except  as  house 
servauts.  Why  ? The  labor  of  slaves,  in  the  cultivation  of  the  limited 
extent,  of  country  fit  for  cultivation,  cannot  be  made  profitable.  It  is  a 
grazing  and  mining  country,  not  an  agricultural  or  planting  region.  The 
finger  of  God  is  iu  slavery,  and  has  marked  out  its  boundaries.  Climate 


15 


and  soil  have  been  arranged  for  its  existence  in  one  direction,  and  its 
repression  and  exclusion  in  another.  So  that  all  the  statutes  ot  men  to 
extend  slavery  there,  or  prohibit  it  here,  are  vain  and  illusory.  It  depends 
upon  natural  laws  which  are  fixed  and  irrepealable. 


REVIEW  OF  THE  SOUTHERN  OPPOSITION. 

We  have  demonstrated,  that  in  all  that  relates  to  slavery  as  a political 
question,  Mr.  Douglas  has  been  consistent  and  straightforward  in  his  opin- 
ions, from  1848  to  the  present  time : That  the  Representative  men  of  the 
South  generally  agreed  with  him  as  to  the  construction  of  the  Kansas-Ne- 
braska  act,  and  the  rights  of  slaveholders  thereunder  in  the  Territories,  in 
1854  and  1856:  That,  with  these  opinions,  well-defined  and  well-under- 
stood, in  1856,  nearly  two-thirds  of  the  southern  Domocracy  cast  their  votes 
for  him  in  the  Cincinnati  Convention,  in  preference  to  Mr.  Buchanan. 
Why,  then,  is  Mr.  Douglas  more  objectionable  to  the  South  this  y^ar, 
than  he  was  four  years  ago?  Can  any  of  his  opponents  or  denouncers 
give  a substantial  reason,  why  the  southern  Democracy  should  not  cheer- 
fully support  him  for  the  Presidency?  Suppose  there  is  a difference  in 
some  respects  between  his  opinions  and  the  opinions  held  by  a portion  of 
the  South  upon  the  judicial  question  which  may  arise  as  to  the  rights 
of  slave-owners  in  the  Territories?  Is  it  any  such  difference  of  opinion,  as 
should  alienate  the  South  from  him  ? Is  not  Mr.  Douglas  a just  man,  and 
a national  man,  and  does  any  one  believe,  that  he  would  not  maintain  the 
rights  of  the  South  under  the  Constitution  just  as  resolutely  and  as  fully 
as  any  southern  man  who  could  be  put  in  the  Presidency  ? What  senti- 
ment has  he  ever  uttered  so  distasteful  to  the  South  as  that  of  Mr.  Buch- 
anan in  his  speech  in  the  Senate  on  the  annexation  of  Texas,  on  the  8th 
of  June,  1844?  He  felt  “a  strong  repugnance”  to  extend  the  present 
limits  of  the  Union  “over  new  slaveholding  territory,”  and  only  overcame 
his  scruples  in  the  belief,  “ that  the  acquisition  of  Texas  would  be  the  means 
of  limiting,  and  not  enlarging  the  dominion  of  slavery.”  Did  the  South 
question  Mr.  Buchanan’s  integrity  on  that  account,  or  asperse  his  name 
because,  in  his  “SaDdford  Letter”  of  August  21,  1848,  lie  expressed  the 
opinion  that  Congress  professes  sovereign  and  exclusive  power  “ to  legislate 
upon  the  subject  of  slavery  in  the  Territories .”  Did  the  southern  Demo- 
cracy repudiate  Gen.  Cass  because  of  his  “Nicholson  Letter,”  asserting 
full  power  in  the  people  in  the  Territories  to  legislate  for  themselves?  Dul 
the  southern  Whigs  ever  desert  Henry  Clay  with  his  declaration,  again 
and  again  repeated,  that  Congress  could  abolish  slavery  in  the  District  of 
Columbia  or  in  the  Territories?  Did  southern  Democrats  have  the  temer- 
ity, even,  to  whisper  a suspicion  of  the  great  Kentuckian’s  fidelity  to  his 
section  ? 

How  is  it  then,  that  Mr.  Buchanan,  Gen.  Cass,  and  Mr.  Clay,  with 
opinions  on  slavery,  equally,  if  not  more  exceptionable  to  the  South  than 
Mr.  Douglas’,  never  came  under  the  ban  of  Southern  displeasure?  Shall 
a new  era  be  inaugurated  in  the  South,  and  every  man,  however  conserva- 
tive and  patriotic  he  may  be,  who  does  not  square  his  opinions  to  a line 
with  extremists  of  every  grade,  be  hounded  and  hunted  down  ? Has  the 
South  become  so  bigoted  that  no  differences  of  opinion  can  or  will  be  tol- 
erated ? Has  it  come  to  this,  that  no  northern  man  can  be  trusted,  how- 
ever firmly  he  may  stand  by  the  compromises  of  the  Constitution,  unless 
he  will  degrade  himself  into  a political  puppet?  Has  the  South  no  grati- 


16 


tude,  no  manliness,  that  those  who  have  fought  for  southern  rights,  through 
years  of  peril,  are  to  be  condemned  and  cast  aside  as  unworthy,  because, 
forsooth,  they  will  not  bow  and  bend  to  every  changing  wind  of  political 
opinion?  We  do  not  believe  it;  we  do  not  believe  that  the  South  will 
either  countenance  wrong,  or  prove  ungrateful.  The  southern  Democracy 
may  be  misled  for  awhile  by  misrepresentation  and  abuse,  but  the  sober, 
second  thought  will  ultimately  prevail.  They  will  remember  Mr.  Douglas, 
the  fearless  advocate  of  the  annexation  of  Texas ; the  first  northern  man 
to  denounce  the  Wilmot  Proviso;  the  faithful  ally  of  Clay,  and  Webster, 
aud  Cass,  in  support  of  the  Compromise  Measures  of  1850  ; the  inflexible 
champion  of  the  Kansas  Nebraska  act  in  1854;  and  the  best  abused  and 
most  dreaded  foe  of  Black  Republicanism.  Remembering  these  things, 
and  that  he  has  always  advocated  the  acquisition  of  Cuba,  they  will  neither 
be  so  false  to  their  section  nor  to  their  party  as  to  strike  down  the  most 
efficient  and  powerful  defender  of  both. 

There  is  another  view  of  the  subject  which  the  southern  Democracy 
racist  ponder  well.  The  number  of  those  in  the  South  who  seek  to  break 
up  the  union  of  the  States,  and  establish  a southern  confederacy,  is  compara- 
tively few.  It  will  largely  increase,  however,  should  the  National  Demo- 
cracy be  overthrown  in  1860; — by  national,  we  mean  fidelity  to  the  Consti- 
tution in  all  its  provisions,  aud  just  regard  for  the  rights  of  every  section. 
Now,  the  success  of  this  great  Party,  which  alone  has  the  power  to  crush 
disunion  at  the  South,  aud  treason  in  the  North,  is  not  to  be  promoted, 
much  less  achieved,  by  mistrusting  and  ostracising  such  men  as  Mr.  Doug- 
las. To  command  success,  the  South  must  be  generous,  tolerant,  and  for- 
bearing ; must  shun  both  the  precept  and  example  of  the  madcaps,  who, 
distrustful  of  every  northern  man,  constantly  revile  as  “Abolitionists”  those 
whom  the  Republicans  scoff  at  as  “sold  to  the  South.”  The  northern  De- 
mocracy are  conservative  and  true ; they  stand  by  the  faith  and  usages  of 
the  party,  and  have  a right  to  expect  a cordial  brotherhood  of  the  sections 
without  which  there  can  be  no  nationality,  no  equality,  no  success. 

Again  ; to  succeed,  a man  of  tried  fidelity,  of  national  reputation,  and, 
by  no  means  least,  a man  around  whom  the  northern  Democracy  can  make 
a defiant  rally,  must  be  the  nominee  of  the" Charleston  Convention.  Neither 
an  extremist  nor  a make-shift  will  do.  The  time  has  gone  by  when  the 
country  will  be  satisfied  with  either  extreme,  uncompromising  men,  or  with 
the  weak,  shilly-shally  in  high  places.  The  times  demand  firmness  temp- 
ered with  discretion,  and  integrity  united  with  the  highest  capacity.  The 
people  will  elect  no  man  to  the  Presidency  who  has  not  a will  of  his  own, 
and  the  courage,  at  all  hazards,  to  “take  care  that  the  laws  shall  be  faith- 
fully executed.”  They  want  a statesman,  not  a politician  ; a statesman 
whose  heart  and  intellect  will  be  devoted  not  to  a section,  but  to  the  Union, 
and  in  whose  ability  to  meet  any  exigency  in  public  affairs,  at  home  or 
abroad,  the  whole  country  may  confidently  repose.  Such  a man  is  Ste- 
phen A.  Douglas — fit,  steady,  strong,  courageous.  Not  a northern  man, 
nor  a southern  man;  but  a national  man,  who  “ carries  the  flag  and 
keeps  step  to  the  music  of  the  Constitction.”  With  him,  neither  sec- 
tion “ will  cheat  or  be  cheated  ;”  he  will  be  just  to  all — partial  to  none. 

April,  1860. 


Printed  by  Lemuel  Towers,  at  $1  00  per  hundred  copies. 


SPEECH 


OP 


HON. 


DOUGLAS, 


OF  ILLINOIS, 

Delivered  in  Richmond,  Virginia , July  9,  1852. 


Mr.  Douglas  visited  Richmond,  on  the  invita- 
tion of  ihe  Central  Democratic  Association,  tender- 
ed him  through  its  president  and  committee.  He 
addressed  the  Association  in  the  African  Church — 
the'  most  capacious  building  of  the  place — on  Fri- 
day night.  A vast  audience  collected  to  hear 
him — filling  to  overflow  the  entire  hall  and  galle- 
ries, and  blocking  up  the  doors,  windows,  and 
aisles.  lie  was  listened  to  throughout  with  pro- 
found attention  and  respect;  and  his  clear  state- 
ment of  facts,  and  cogent  applications  of  them, 
have  made  a deep  impression  upon  the  people  of 
Richmond . — Richmond  Examiner. 

Mr.  D.  wa3  greeted  with  rapturous  and  con- 
tinued applause,  and  proceeded  to  address  the 
meeting  substantially  as  follows  : 

Mr  President  : I am  not  insensible  to  the 
compliment  conferred  upon  me  by  your  kind  invi- 
tation to  address  the  democracy  of  the  “ Old  Do- 
minion”— a State  which,  more  than  any  other, 
has  the  honor  of  having  imbodied  and  proclaimed 
to  the  world  that  genuine  creed  of  democracy 
which  has  been  our  text-book  in  all  political  con- 
tests. 1 am  the  more  gratified  at  it,  because  I 
have  the  honor  to  reside  in  and  represent  a State 
which  was  once  il  the  county  or  Illinois,  in  the 

/ate  of  Virginia.”  Since  that  county  has  be- 
•_  ;.ne  one  of  the  sovereign  States  of  the  Union, 
like  her  illustrious  mother,  she  has  never  departed 
from  the  faith,  nor  failed  to  sustain  the  democratic 
nominees  at  any  presidential  election.  [Applause.] 
Always  true  to  the  rights  of  the  States  and  to  the 
bond  of  the  federal  Union — never  departing  from 
those  great  landmarks  laid  down  by  Kentucky 
ind  Virginia  in  the  resolutions  of  ’9S— ’99 — I trust 
that,  like  the  Old  Dominion,  Illinois  willaiways  be 
found  faithful  not  only  to  the  principles  but  to  the 
candidates  of  the  Democratic  party.  [Cheers.] 

In  the  present  contest  we  have  not  only  a “ plat- 
form,” but  standard-bearers  which  unite  and  har- 


monize the  sentiments  of  our  entire  party  through- 
out this  broad  land.  I have  heard  of  no  democrat 
who  repudiates  the  platform  [Applause.]  I know 
of  no  section  of  the  party  which  thinks  that  it 
ought  to  be  “ defied”  or  “ spit  upon.”  [Renewed 
applause.] 

The  platform  is  an  embodiment  of  the  principles 
of  the  party  upon  all  questions  to  which  it  extends, 
and  is  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  whole  system 
of  principles  which  it  is  our  purpose  to  carry  into 
effect. 

We  have  not  only  been  fortunate  in  our  platform, 
but  equally  so  in  our  candidates.  [Great  applause.] 
It  is  not  said  of  the  democratic  convention  that  one 
section  sold  out  their  principles  in  order  to  get 
their  man,  [great  applause;]  for  democrats  hold 
that  it  is  not  only  essential  to  have  sound  princi- 
ples, but  to  have  honest  and  patriotic  men  to  carry 
those  principles  into  effect.  No  matter  how  pure 
your  principles  may  be,  if  you  have  not  men  of 
intelligence,  of  honesty,  of  patriotism,  and  who 
understand  your  creed,  your  principles  are  not 
safe  in  their  hands.  Hence,  as  democrats,  we 
invite  the  most  rigid  and  strict  scrutiny  into  the 
public  and  private  character  of  Franklin  Pierce 
and  William  R.  King.  [Great  applause.]  We 
lay  their  whole  history,  private  and  public,  before 
the  world,  and  challenge  investigation. 

Take  Franklin  Pierce  from  his  boyhood  up. 
So  far  as  his  personal  honor  and  character  are 
//.teemed,  even  the  breath  of  slander  has  never 
dared  to  speak  against  them  above  a whisper,  and 
then  not  without  looking  to  see  what  honorable 
j man  might  be  present  to  repel  the  accusation. 
[Applause.]  Take  his  public  career  in  the  legis- 
lature of  his  own  State,  in  the  hails  of  Congress,  or 
wherever  else  fortune  may  have  taken  him  in  the 
! discharge  of  duty,  and  we  defy  our  political  oppo- 
; nents  to  point  to  one  act  of  infidelity  to  his  duty, 
[Great  cheering.]  He  is  not  an  obscure  and  un- 
known man.  He  has  served  several  periods  in 
the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  and  voted  upon 
ail  important  questions  which  came  before  him. 
He  has  served  several  years  in  the  Senate  of  the 
United  States  in  times  that  required  the  nerve  and 


the  patriotism  of  every  man  to  be  called  into  active 
requisition.  There  is  his  record,  and  we  invite 
you  to  examine  it.  Try  him  by  his  votes,  by  his 
speeches,  by  his  acts,  and  let  any  democrat  find 
aught  of  which  he  can  complain.  Upon  all  of  the 
party  questions  that  were  agitated  during  the  ad- 
ministration of  the  immortal  Jackson,  or  of  Mr. 
Van  Buren,  covering  the  period  in  v/hich  he  was 
a member  either  of  one  or  the  other  house  of  Con- 
gress, Franklin  Pierce  was  found  to  be  true  to  the 
constitution,  true  to  the  rights  of  the  States — a 
national  man  upon  all  occasions,  and  sectional 
upon  no  question.  [Great  applause  ] 

During  his  nine  years’  service  in  the  two  houses', 
of  Congress,  he  acquired  an  enviable  reputation 
as  a debater  and  a statesman.  He  retired  from 
the  Senate  in  1842  in  consequence  of  domestic 
afflictions  and  obligations,  which  a man  of  his 
sensibilities  was  not  at  liberty  to  disregard. 

During  the  administration  of  Presideiff*Polk  he 
invited  Mr.  Pierce  to  accept  a seat  in  his  cabinet. 
They  had  been  associated  in  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives, and  knew  each  other  well.  They  had 
stood  by  Old  Hickory  during  the  war  with  the 
bank  and  the  moneyed  power;  and  it  was  natural 
that  Mr.  Polk  should  desire  to  avail  himself  of  the 
services  of  a man  whose  ability,  fidelity,  and  pa- 
triotism he  had  witnessed  and  seen  tested  on  so 
many  and  such  trying  occasions. 

Mr.  Pierce  fell  constrained  to  decline  it  from 
the  same  causes  which  induced  him  to  resign  his 
seat  in  the  Senate. 

Soon  afterwards  the  United  States  found  them- 
selves engaged  in  a foreign  war;  and  a call  was 
made  upon  the  citizen  soldiery  to  repair  to  the 
scene  of  action  and  repel  ihe  insolent  foe  who  had 
dared  to  invade  their  native  land. 

Then  it  was  that  Mr.  Pierce  did  not  feel  him- 
self at  liberty  to  decline  the  call.  He  volunteered 
as  a private  ; but  was  not  allowed  to  remain  long 
in  the  ranks — being  appointed  colonel  of  his  regi- 
ment, and  subsequently  a brigadier  general  in  the 
army.  The  records  of  the  department  and  the 
history  of  the  war  furnish  satisfactory  evidence 
that  he  displayed  ability,  skill,  and  gallantry  of  a 
■high  order  in  the  performance  of  his  military  du- 
ties. I am  aware  that  the  whiga  have  been  in  the 
habit,  lately,  of  assailing  the  military  conduct  of 
General  Pierce.  Instead  of  any  direct  charge, 
they  deal  in  that  cowardly  mode  of  insinuation 
which  is  worse  than  direct  and  open  calumny  ; 
because  it  does  not  take  the  responsibility  of  bold 
and  specific  accusation.  They  nickname  him 
“ The  Fainting  General,”  and  talk  about  his 
having  fallen  from  his  horse  on  the  field  of  battle. 
■While  they  do  not  dare  openly  to  say  that  these 
■acts  are,  evidence  of  cowardice  on  his  part,  yet 
there  is  no  other  motive  for  the  insinuation  except 
to  instil  into  the  minds  of  the  American  people 
the  impression  that  he  wa3  a coward.  If  that  be 
■true,  why  not  have  the  manliness  to  come  up 
openly  ai  d charge  the  fact?  1 do  r,ot  know  how 
it  is  in  the  Old  Dominion,  but  I have  reason  to 
believe  that  the  same  rule  applies  here  as  in  the 
•great  Northwest.  There  we  hold  that  man  com- 
paratively honorable  who  utters  a calumny  openly, 
-and  boldly  meets  the  responsibility,  when  con- 
trasted with  the  slanderer  who  will  sneakingly  in- 
sinuate that  which  lie  dares  not  openly  avow. 
[G  reat  cheering.] 

Now,  fellow-citizens,  I have  but  one  answer  to 
make  to  all  these  insinuations  in  reference  to 


General  Pierce’s  military  character ; and  that  an- 
swer is  simply  this:  General  Winfield  Scott,  in 
his  official  reports,  under  the  sanction  of  an  oath, 
has  given  the  lie  direct  to  every  base  slanderer 
who  dares  intimate  or  insinuate  such  an  imputa- 
tion. [Applause.]  I wish  every  whig  to  remem- 
ber that,  if  lie  ever  utters  or  repeats  lilts  charge, 
his  candidate  for  the  presidency  has  pronounced 
and  proven  him  a calumniator;  and  that  by 
making  the  charge  he  also  accuses  General  Scott 
of  falsehood  in  his  official  reports  to  the  govern- 
ment. Do  our  whig  friends  expect  to  commend 
their  candidate  to  tne  favorable  consideration  of 
the  American  people  by  branding  him  with  official 
falsehood,  whilst  at  the  head  of  that  gallant  army 
in  which  he  gained  all  of  his  laurels?  Either 
General  Scott  is  unworthy  of  public  confidence,  or 
Franklin  Pierce  was  a brave,  gallant,  and  skilful 
general.  [Great  applause  ] 

1 have  no  charges  to  make  against  the  military 
conduct,  the  gallantry  and  heroism  of  the  illus- 
trious general  whom  the  whiga  have  presented  to 
the  people  of  the  United  States  as  their  candidate 
for  the  presidency.  I will  not  depreciate  his 
merits  as  a soldier,  because  truth  and  honor  for- 
bid it.  [Applause.]  I will  refrain,  because,  as 
an  American,  I have  too  much  pride  of  country 
to  cast  the  slightest  shade  of  dishonor  upon  those 
glorious  deeds  which  form  a part  of  American 
history.  The  laurels  of  Scott,  achieved  while 
fighting  the  battles  of  his  country  upon  the  Cana- 
dian frontier,  or  in  the  various  Indian  wars,  or  in 
the  more  recent  Mexican  campaigns,  are  common 
property  ; and  1 am  as  proud  ot  them  as  any  of 
our  whig  friends,  who,  after  having  opposed  each 
of  these  wars,  are  now  striving  to  elevate  a mili- 
tary chieftain  to  the  presidency  solely  upon  the 
ground  that  he  was  a gallant  hero,  in  what  they 
believed  to  be  an  unjust  cause.  [Great  applause.] 
But,  fellow-citizens,  we  are  to  deal  with  Gen. 
Scott,  during  this  campaign,  not  as  the  general-in- 
chief of  the  American  army — not  in  the  perform- 
ance of  his  professional  duties;  but  in  a new 
character  which  he  lias  lately  assumed — that  of 
a partisan  candidate,  seeking  political  honors.  It 
is  of  the  politician  that  I am  now  to  speak,  and 
not  of  the  general.  I propose  to  submit  to  you, 
and  to  the  American  people,  the  question,  whether,  1 
when  General  Scott  departs  from  the  line  of  his 
profession,  and  from  that  course  of  duty  in  which  1 
lie  has  acquired  all  his  honors  and  his  glory,  it  is  '■ 
wise  and  patriotic  to  convert  a good  general  1 
into  a bad  President.  [Cheers  ] 

General  Scott  is  presented  to  the  American  peo-  1 
pie  by  the  Whig  National  Convention  as  a candi- 
date for  the  presidency.  That  convention,  before 
proceeding  to  this  nomination,  formed  and  pro- 
claimed to  the  world  a platform.  Of  that  platform 
1 have  bat  little  to  say  ; for  in  all  things,  except 
upon  the  slavery  question,  it  is  a genuine  whig  ' 
concern,  to  which  every  democrat  is  presumed  to  ’ 
be  utterly  and  irreconcilably  opposed.  So  far  as  it  I 
relates  to  the  slavery  question,  it  is  a plank  stolen  1 
from  the  democratic  platform  for  which  they  now  I 
attempt  to  claim  credit  before  the  A merican  peo-  ll 
pie.  [Applause.]  After  the  convention  had  thus  P 
proclaimed  the  platform,  it  proceeded  to  nominate  If 
a -candidate  for  the  presidency  who  had  perti-  If 
naciously  refused  on  any  public  occasion  ever  to 
endorse  the  platform,  or  to  give  any  assurance  of  | 
his  approval  of  its  principles.  True,  he  wrote  a 
letter  to  a member  of  the  convention,  in  which  he  ! 


3 


| said,  substantially,  that  “ if  you  will  nominate  me  be,  at  the  proper  time,  the  substance  of  my  reply  to 
I will  -write  a letter  in  which  I will  express  senti-  the  convention;  and  I now  have  the  honor  to  re- 
: ments  as  strong  in  favor  of  ihe  Compromise  as  I peat,  in  a more  formal  manner,  as  the  occasion 
did  to  you  in  private.”  “ I will  not  write  a letter  justly  demands,  that  I accept  the  nomination, 
for  publication  now,  because  that  would  look  like  with  the  resolutions  annexed.” 


bidding  for  the  presidency.”  [Laughter.]  “But 
you  are  at  liberty  to  show  this  to  Jones,  and 
Botts,  and  other  friends.”  [Great  laughter.] 
Now,  gentlemen,  what  do  you  think  of  the  frank- 
ness of  the  old  soldier?  He  writes  no  letters  for 
publication,  lest  he  might  be  suspected  of  elec- 
tioneering; but  sends  private  notes  to  members  of 
! the  convention  pledging  himself  to  make  a publi- 
cation in  favor  of  certain  principles  in  the  event  ol* 
his  nomination.  Is  this  mancEuvre  sanctioned  by 
“ Scott’s  Infantry  Tadics  ” as  adopted  in  the  arm}', 
or  has  the  old  soldier  been  taking  lessons  in  political 
i tactics  from  Gen.  Seward  ? [Renewed  laughter.] 

Well,  General  Scott  received  the  nomination 
! “ unanimously,”  according  to  the  official  proceed- 
ings of  the  convention.  [Laughter.] 

Fellow-citizens,  did  you  ever  hear  of  a unani- 
mous nomination  which  was  made  in  defiance  of 
the  fifty-times  repeated  protest  and  remonstrance 
of  the  delegations  from  one  half  of  the  States  of 
the  Union  represented  in  the  convention?  Every 
southern  delegation  voted  against  him  more  than 
fifty  times,  day  after  day,  and  night  after  night; 
and  yet  the  nomination  was  “ unanimous.”  [Great 
laughter.]  The  nomination  of  General  Scott, 

: therefore,  presents  to  the  American  people  this 
extraordinary  anomaly : for  the  first  time  in  the 
history  of  our  party  contests  has  a sectional  nom- 
ination ever  been  forced  upon  either  of  the  two 
; great  parties.  You  may  talk  of  the  dangers  to 
the  American  Union  growing  out  of  partisan  strife 
and  political  contests — you  may  tremble  at  the 
scenes  through  which  we  have  all  recently  passed, 
connected  with  the  slavery  agitation ; but  yet 
there  was  nothing  in  all  that  so  perilous  to  the 
safety  of  the  Union  as  a sectional  nomination  for 
the  presidency,  where  the  North  demanded  the 
nomination  of  a particular  man  upon  a sectional 
issue,  and  the  delegations  from  every  southern 
State,  without  exception,  resisting  the  nomination 
as  dangerous  to  their  rights  and  institutions.  A 
nomination  forced  upon  the  South  by  the  abolition 
wing  of  the  whig  party  north  is  now  presented  to 
the  American  people  as  a “ unanimous  nomina- 
tion.” It  matters  not  whether  the  North  forced 
the  nomination  upon  the  South,  or  the  South  upon 
the  North,  the  danger  consists  in  the  fact  that  a 
territorial  line  divided  men’s  opinions  ; that  north- 
ern men  were  one  way,  and  southern  men  the 
other.  But,  after  the  nomination  is  made,  we  are 
told  that  it  was  a fair  compromise,  because  the 
South  received  the  platform,  and  the  North  ob- 
tained the  candidate,  under  the  direction  of  men 
who  “ defy”  and  “ spitupon”  the  platform.  Thus 
we  have  Winfield  Scott  before  us  as  a candidate 
for  the  presidency.  After  mature  deliberation,  he 
proceeds  to  accept  the  nomination,  and  to  write 
the  letter  which  he  had  promised  Mr.  Archer  in 
the  private  note  that  was  found  in  Botts’s  breechcs- 
pocket.  [Laughter.]  Let  us  see  whether  that 
letter  is  as  strong  as  the  one  which  he  promised 
to  write  ? He  says  : 

“Not  having  written  a word  to  procure  this 
distinction,”  [laughter,]  “ I lost  not  a moment, 
after  it  had  been  conferred,  in  addressing  a letter 
to  one  of  your  members  to  signify  what  would 


Now,  gentlemen,  I desire  to  know  what  is  the 
meaning  of  the  words  “with  the  resolutions  an- 
nexed.” Does  he  mean  that  he  approves  the  reso- 
lutions ? If  so,  why  did  he  not  say  so,  as  the  candi- 
date for  the  vice  presidency  (Mr.  Graham)  did,  in 
his  letter  of  acceptance?  Or,  why.did  he  not  do  as  . 
that  gallant  and  honest  man  (Franklin  Pierce) 
|did,  and  say,  “ I accept  the  nomination  upon  the 
platform  adopted  by  the  convention,  not  because 
this  is  expected  of  me  as  a candidate,  but  because 
the  principles  it  embraces  command  the  approba- 
tion of  my  judgment?”  There  you  have  an  honest, 
man  speaking  from  an  honest  heart,  without  any 
equivocation,  dissimulation,  or  mental  reserva- 
tion. Here  you  find  that  General  Scott  “ accepts 
the  nomination,  with  the  resolutions  annexed” — 
that  is  to  say,  using  language  susceptible  of  two 
constructions — one  at  the  North,  and  another  at 
the  South.  In  the  North,  it  will  be  said  that  he 
accepts  the  nomination,  nolioiths  finding  the  plat- 
form ; that  he  accepts  it,  although  he  “ defies”  the 
platform  ; that  he  accepts  it,  although  he  “ spits 
upon”  the  platform.  At  the  South,  it  will  be  said 
: he  accepts  it,  with  an  approval  of  the  platform.  I 
submit  the  question  to  you,  whether  that  language 
was  not  framed  studiously  for  the  purpose  of  en- 
abling men,  north  and  south,  to  read  it  one  way 
1 or  the  other,  as  the  public  pulse  should  beat  in 
their  particular  localities.  Again : I submit  to 
you,  was  it  the  general-in-chief  of  the  army  who 
fought  the  battles  in  Mexico  that  conceived  this 
part  of  the  letter,  or  was  it  his  commander-in- 
chief, General  Seward,  who  dictated  it?  [Great, 
applause.] 

But  I have  heard  it  said  that  there  is  another 
part  of  this  letter  which  helps  the  matter  out. 
Here  it  is.  Towards  the  conclusion  of  the  letteiu 
he  says:  “Finally,  for  my  strict  adherence  to  the 
principles  of  the  whig  party,  as  expressed  in  the 
resolutions  of  the  convention  and  herein  suggested, 
with  a sincere  and  earnest  purpose  to  advance  the 
greatness  and  happiness  of  the  republic,”  and  so 
on,  “ I can  offer  no  other  pledge  or  guarantee  than 
the  known  incidents  of  a long  public  life,  now  un- 
dergoing the  severest  criticism.”  He  can  give  no 
other  pledge  “than  the  known  incidents  of  a long 
public  life,  now  undergoing  the  severest  criticism.” 
What  “incidents”  are  there  referred  to  as  the 
“pledge”  for  his  future  conduct?  Certainly  not 
his  military  career  for  forty  years;  for  that  was  not 
an  incident  of  his  life.  It  constitutes  the  princi- 
pal, nay,  his  whole  public  career;  and  besides, 
that  military  life  is  not  “now  undergoing  the 
severest  criticism,”  or  any  criticism.  It  was 
not,  then,  his  military  career  to  which  he  re- 
j ferred  when  he  spoke  of  the  known  incidents  of 
his  life,  which  would  afford  a guarantee  of  his 
political  principles  and  conduct.  To  what,  then,  * 
did  he  refer?  His  series  of  political  letters  did 
constitute  “incidents”  in  his  long  life — well- 
known  incidents ; and  those  incidents  are  now 
undergoing  the  severest  criticism.  Hence  to  those 
letters  he  must  have  referred  as  the  only  pledge 
he  was  willing  to  give  for  his  political  fidelity.  I 
repeat,  what  are  those  incidents  as  contained  in 
the  political  letters  to  which  allusion  is  so  pointed- 


4 


ly  made?  First,  a pledge  to  support  the  annexa- 
tion of  Canada  to  the  American  Union  ; second,  a 
pledge  to  the  creed  of  the  native-American  party  ; 
third,  a pledge  for  the  gradual  emancipation  of 
slavery;  fourth,  a pledge  for  the  support  of  the 
bankrupt  law;  fifth,  a pledge  for  a rational  bank  ; 
and  so  on  through  the  whole  series  of  federal 
measures,  stretching  out  like  Macbeth’s  proces- 
sion of  ghosts,  some  in  existence,  and  others  sup- 
posed to  have  become  “obsolete  ideas.”  To  these 
incidents — to  the  pledges  contained  in  the-te  politi- 
cal letters — he  must  be  understood  as  referring  as 
the  only  guarantee  he  will  give  to  carry  out  the 
principles  laid  down  by  the  whig  party,  and  sug- 
gested in  his  letter  of  acceptance.  We  here  find 
the  principles  and  issues  upon  which  this  cam- 
paign is  to  be  fought.  It  is  true  there  are  yet  one 
or  two  other  planks  to  be  added  to  the  platform ; 
for  General  Scott  was  not  willing  to  “ annex  ” th<- 
whig  resolutions,  arid  stop  there  He  wished  to 
convey  the  idea  distinctly  that  that  was  not  the 
ground  upon  which  he  stood  exclusively,  if  he 
stood  upon  it  all.  Hence  we  find  him  going  fur- 
ther, and  saying  that  “ the  political  principles  and 
measures  laid  down  in  those  resolutions  are  so 
broad  that  but  little  is  /eft / nr  me  to  add.”  [Laugh- 
ter.] A modest  man  ! He  accepts  the  nomina- 
tion, “ with  the  resolutions  annexed,”  and  then 
adds  a little  [Renewed  laughter.]  Let  us  see 
what  be  adds.  He  .-ays:  “I  therefore  barely 
suggest,  in  this  place,  that  shou'd  I,  hy  the  par- 
tiality of  my  countrymen,  be  elevated  to  the  chief 
magistracy  of  the  Union,  I shall  be  ready,  in  my 
connexion  with  Congress,  to  recommend  or  to 
approve  of  measures  in  regard  to  the  management 
of  the  public  domain  so  as  to  secure  an  early  set- 
tlement of  the  same  favorable  to  actual  settlers, 
but  consistent,  nevertheless,  with  a due  regard  to 
the  equal  rights  o the  whole  American  people  in 
that  vast  national  inheritance.” 

A Gentleman  in  the  meeting.  “ What  does 
he  mean?” 

Mr.  Douglas.  I hear  a gentleman  behind  me 
asking  what  does  General  Scott  mean  by  this? 
That  is  precisely  what  I was  going  to  ask  you, 
gentlemen.  What  does  he  mean?  I will  tell  you 
what  I suppose  he  means.  He  means  that,  inas- 
much as  there  are  two  bills  now  pending  before 
Congress  in  rela  ion  to  the  public  domain  radically 
antagonistic  to  each  other,  to  wit : the  homestead 
bill  and  the  bill  to  divide  and  distribute  the  public 
lands  among  the  States,  and  inasmuch  as  the  new 
Stat' s are  for  one  of  those  hills  and  violently 
against  the  other,  and  inasmuch  as  the  old  tates 
are  for  the  other  bill  and  opposed  to  the  homestead 
bill,  he  says,  “ I am  for  the  one  favorable  to  ac- 
tual settlers — that  is,  the  homestead  bill — sn  as  to 
secure  the  rights  of  the  old  Stales  in  this  vast  national 
inheritance .”  [Great  laughter.]  In  other  words, 
“ I am  for  the  homestead  bill,  so  as  to  defeat  it, 
and  pass  the  distribution  bill.”  That  is  the  argu- 
ment to  be  used  in  the  old  States.  Or,  “ 1 am  for 
the  distribution  bill,  so  as  to  defeat  it,  and  pass 
the  homestead  bill;”  and  this  will  be  the  argu 
ment  in  the  new  States.  Now,  I defy  any  living 
man  to  tell  what  is  the  real  meaning  of  thy  para- 
graph which  I have  just  read,  or  on  which  side  of 
either  of  these  two  antagonistic  questions  is  Gene- 
ral Scott  committed  by  this  letter.  Is  he  for  the 
homestead  bill,  or  for  the  distribution  bill?  In 
my  State,  when  I go  home  and  visit  the  actual 
cettlers  upon  the  broad  prairies,  I expect  to  hear 


General  Scott’s  friends  claim  that  he  is  the  best 
advocate  in  America  of  the  homestead  bill ; and  in 
Old  Virginia,  in  New  England,  in  New  York,  in 
all  the  old  States,  they  will  say  “he  is  publicly 
committed  against  that  ‘ vile  and  infamous  ’ meas- 
ure, and  in  favor  of  distributing  the  lands  among 
the  old  States.”  They  will  attempt  to  prove  each 
proposition  in  turn  by  the  language  used  in  hia 
letter  of  acceptance.  I again  submit  the  question, 
was  this  part  of  the  letter  the  production  of  the 
| general-in-chief  of  the  American  army,  or  did 
it  originate  with  the  commander-in-chief  of  his 
political  fortunes?  Does  it  bear  the  marks  of  a 

Kank,  honest,  straightforward  old  soldier,  or  of 
e tricky  politician  ? 

.Again,  General  Scott,  in  this  letter  of  accept- 
ance, incorporates  another  plank  into  the  platform 
which  was  adopted  at  Baltimore  and  “ annexed  ” 
at  Washington.  He  proposes  “also  to  recom- 
mend or  to  approve  of  a single  alteration  in  our 
naturalization  laws,  suggested  by  my  military 
experience,  viz:  Giving  to  all  foreigners  the  right 
of  citizenship  who  shall  faithfully  serve  in  time  of 
war  one  year  on  board  of  our  public  ships,  or  in 
our  land  forces,  regular  or  volunteer,  on  their  re- 
ceiving an  honorable  discharge  from  the  service.” 

This  is  the  suggestion  of  his  military  experi- 
ence. Re  oliect,  that  in  1841  General  Scott  was 
only  hesitating  between  .an  alteration  in  our  nat- 
uralization laws,  requiring  a residence  of  twenty- 
one  years  in  this  country  as  a necessary  apprentice- 
ship^or  naturalization,  and  a total  repeal  of  all 
laws  on  the  subject — in  other  words,  for  incapa- 
citating foreigners  from  ever  becoming  citizens  of 
this  country  at  all — and  that  his  “ mind  then  in- 
clined to  the  la  ter  all t rna' ive .”  Recollect,  that  in 
1841  he  olaimfd  to  be  the  origina'or  of  the  great 
native-Americari  party — pledged  himself  to  its 
support — was  fired  with  in  ignat  on  against  those 
foreigners  who  claimed  to  be  citizens,  and  to  vote, 
and  enjoy  the  privileges  of  our  laws  educe  1841 
the  only  military  experience  of  General  Scott  has 
been  in  Mexico,  thousands  of  miles  from  the  sight, 
hearing,  and  influence  of  American  institutions. 
He  means,  iherefore,  that  this  military  experience 
teaches  him  that  a year’s  service  in  a foreign 
land,  beyond  the  reach  of  our  laws,  beyond  the 
hearing  of  our  language,  where  an  American 
newspaper  never  comes,  where  an  election  is  an 
unknown  and  inconceivable  event,  where  the 
name  of  the  constitution  is  never  heard,  and  under 
the  martial  rule  which  nullifies  both  law  and  con- 
stitution -he  says  that  a twelve-months’ service 
under  these  circumstances  fits  a man  for  citizen- 
ship as  well  is  a whole  life  spent  here  in  the  pur- 
suits of  a citizen’s  life,  and  in  the  daily  observa- 
tion of  the  practical  working  of  our  institutions. 
Such  is  the  result  of  his  experience  in  the  Mexi- 
can war. 

But  it  is  a subject  of  doubt  whether  General 
Scott  proposes  this  “ single  alteration  ’ as  a sub- 
stitute for  uur  existing  naturalization  law,  or 
whether  he  proposes  it  as  an  additional  law,  so 
that  we  shall  have  two  distinct  laws  of  naturaliza- 
tion. 1 am  compelled  to  believe  tliai  be  intends 
the  former  pro  osition  ; for  I need  not  tell  this 
audience  that  the  constitution  of  the  Un  ted  States 
gives  Congress  the  power  to  pass  “ a uniform  rule 
of  nature  ization,”  and  power"  to  pass  no  other. 
If,  therefore,  General  Scott  means  that  we  shall 
have  two  modes  of  naturalization — one  being  the 
existing  form,  and  the  other  a year’s  service  in 


5 


he  army — his  proposition  is  unconstitutional,  and 
mpossib'e,  and  an  absolute  absurdity.  Is  it  pos-  : 
;ible  that  this  candidate  for  the  presidency  never 
ead  the  constitution  ? I am  unwilling  to  assume 
he  fact,  and  do  not  like  to  put  upon  his  words 
:uck  a construction.  There  is  a difficulty  indeed 
n construing  them — they  are  equivocal,  like  all 
he  rest  of  his  letter.  But  there  is  this  well-known 
ule  of  construction — that  when  a document  ad- 
nits  of  two  meanings,  one  impossible  and  absurd, 
he  other  consistent,  intelligible,  and  significant, 
ve  are  bound  to  take  the  latter.  Now,  if  this 
lause  in  the  letter  means  that  General  Scott  de- 
ires  an  addition  to  our  naturalization  laws  which 
vou.d  destroy  their  uniformity  by  giving  unequal 
dvantages,  and  offering  different  modes  of  natu- 
lalization  to  different  persons,  he  proposes  an  “ al- 
eration"  which  is  impossible  under  the  constitu- 
ion.  But  if  he  means  that  this  single  alteration  [ 
hall  be  a substitute  for  all  ou  r laws — in  other  words, 
f he  means  that  a year  of  military  or  naval  service  j 
hall  be  the  sole  means  of  naturalization — then  his 
imposition,  however  inexpedient,  is  a proposition 
or  a uniform  law  ; is  consistent  with  the  consti- 
ution  ; is  consistent  with  his  former  declarations, 
nd  consistent  with  itself.  Such,  then,  we  are 
iound  to  believe  his  meaning  to  be — namely,  that 
■y  an  enlistment  into  our  naval  or  land  forces,  and 
me  year’s  service  onlyfshail  an  emigrant  to  this 
ountry  become  a citizen  of  the  United  States. 
'Vhat  a plank  for  a platform  ! Is  this  a principle 
if  the  whig  party?  If  it  is,  the  country  ought  to 
mow  it.  Or  is  it  only  the  utterance  of  a forked 
ongue — another  gull-trap — constructed  to  catch 
ffative  votes  under  one  construction,  and  the  votes 
if  our  adopted  citizens  under  a different  construc- 
ion.  Charity  even  requires  this  construction,  for 
hould  General  Scott,  by  any  strange  accident,  by 
.ny  marvellous  hallucination  of  this  people,  be- 
ome  the  President  of  the  United  States — should 
lie  in  good  faith  strive  to  make  the  al'eration  he  ! 
uroposes,  and  should  he  succeed  in  doing  ss — 
Vhat  results  would  come  of  that  event ! We  have 
low  an  army  of  10,000  men,  all  told.  But 
!'50,000  foreigners  come  every  year  to  these 
hores.  If  an  enlistment  becomes  necessary  to 
hake  these  people  citizens,  our  standing  army 
vill  soon  contain  a million  of  men.  Are  all  these 
migrants  to  be  turned  into  the  army  and  navy 
or  naturalization?  Or  is  it  proposed  that  they 
.hall  remain  in  a land  of  freedom,  disfranchised, 
leprivtd  of  all  political  rights,  of  all  participation 
n the  civil  affairs  of  the  country,  and  reduced  to 
. system  of  political  bondage  more  intolerable 
Ihan  that  from  which  they  fled  in  their  native 
land  ? 

The  democratic  party  has  ever  been  just  and 
iberal  to  all  foreigners  that  come  here.  That 
larty  has  made  this  country  a home  for  the  exile, 
,n  asylum  for  the  oppressed  of  all  the  world. 
We  make  no  distinctions  among  our  fellow-citi- 
I’.ens.  Uniform  naturalization  and  equality  under 
he  law  has  been  our  principle  from  the  bSginning, 
ind  will  be  through  the  coming  time.  [Applause.] 
I.tis  this  wise,  just,  and  honest  policy  that  has  at- 
ached  the  foreign  vote  to  the  democratic  party. 
Aid  we  are  willing  to  let  them  judge  now  between 
lurselves  and  a candidate  who  sets  up  this  trans- 
parent blind  between  his  present  position  and  his 
heal  principles,  as  expressed  in  his  memorable 
etterof’41.  If  General  Scott  has  changed  his 
! opinions  since  that  day — if  all  the  indignation 


which  “fired”  him  then  has  melted  down  to  love 
and  admiration  under  the  operation  of  “his  mili- 
tary experience” — why  does  he  not  say  so  like  a 
man?  I am  unwilling  to  believe  that  a gallant 
soldier  would  have  done  thus,  had  he  written  a 
letter  himself ; but  I will  not  undertake  to  say 
what  his  political  file-leader  would  not  do  while 
he  held  the  pen. 

Gentlemen,  this  letter  of  General  Scott  accept- 
ing the  nomination  is  a fertile  theme  for  a speech. 
It  has  manifold  charms  and  attractions.  I thought 
it  would  take  me  but  a few  moments  to  get  through 
with  it;  but  it  contains  so  many  novel  and  rare 
features,  that  you  will  bear  with  me  for  calling 
your  attention  to  other  portions  of  it. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  the  whig  party, 
from  time  immemorial,  have  been  in  the  habit, 
in  every  election,  of  charging  the  democracy  with 
proscription — with  proscribing  honest  men  for 
opinion’s  sake — turning  them  cut  of  office  merely 
for  a difference  of  political  sentiment,  and  put- 
ting democratic  partisans  in  their  places.  “ Pro- 
scribe proscription,”  has  been  the  whig  motto. 
It  was  so  when  Henry  Clay  was  the  gallant 
standard-bearer  of  the  whig  party.  Every  whig 
in  America  was  horror-stricken  at  the  odious 
doctrine,  that  “ to  the  victors  belong  the  spoils.” 
Every  whig  then  denounced  the  idea  of  removing 
a man  from  office  merely  because  of  a difference 
of  opinion  on  the  subject  of  partisan  politics. 
When  General  Taylor  was  the  whig  candidate 
four  years  ago,  you  were  told  upon  every  stump, 
in  the  public  press,  and  through  every  vehicle  of 
communicating  intelligence  to  the  people,  that  no 
man  was  to  be  removed  in  consequence  of  his 
political  sentiments;  that  it  made  no  difference 
whether  he  was  a whig  or  a democrat ; if  he  was 
honest  and  capable,  he  was  to  be  protected  in  the 
station  he  held.  What  do  we  find  now?  General 
Scott,  in  his  letter  of  acceptance,  in  cunning  and 
adroit  language,  solemnly  pledges  himself  that  no 
democrat  shall  ever  hold  office  under  his  adminis- 
tration, but  that  abolition  whigs  may  do  so  with- 
out the  slightest  hindrance  ; this  is  my  translation 
of  that  £art  of  his  letter.  Now  let  us  recur  to 
his  own  words.  He  says:  “In  regard  to  the 
general  policy  of  the  administration,  if  elected,  I 
should,  of  course,  look  among  those  who  may 
approve  that  policy  for  the  agents  to  carry  it  into 
execution ; and  I should  seek  to  cultivate  har- 
mony and  fraternal  sentiments  throughout  the 
whig  party,  without  attempting  to  reduce  its 
members  by  proscription  to  exact  conformity  to 
my  own  views.”  He  would  seek  agents  from 
among  those  who  approved  the  policy  of  his  ad- 
\ ministration.  As  democrats  do  not  approve,  ai  d 
I cannot  approve,  of  the  policy  of  such  an  adminis- 
| tration  as  hi3  would  be,  they  are  excluded  from 
| ever  holding  office  under  an  administration  at  the 
! head  of  which  General  Scott  may  be  placed. 
Can  language  be  more  clear  and  explicit,  that  a 
man  differing  from  him  in  politics  cannot  partici- 
pate in  the  honors  and  emoluments  which  his 
country  may  have  to  award  to  merit  and  patriot- 
ism ? Proscription  of  all  political  opponents  is 
boldly  proclaimed  in  advance.  He  says,  in  sub- 
stance, “ Democrats,  take  notice  : you  do  not  ap- 
prove of  my  policy ; you  cannot  be  selected  as 
my  agents  ; you  cannot  enjoy  any  of  the  patron- 
age of  the  government ; it  is  to  be  distributed 
only  to  those  who  do  approve  the  policy  of  the 
1 administration.”  But  then,  looking  around  and 


6 


seeing  Mr.  Seward  and  his  abolition  followers,  he 
adds,  “but  I will  cultivate  harmony  and  fraternal 
sentiments  throughout  the  whig  party,  without 
attempting  to  reduce  its  members  by  proscription 
to  exact  conformity  to  my  own  views.”  No  fra- 
ternal feeling  is  to  be  cultivated  between  him  and 
the  democracy  ; no  friendly  sentiments  are  to  pre- 
vail between  him  and  us.  This  brotherhood  and 
fraternal  feeling  are  only  to  be  among  the  members 
of  the  whig  party  ; and  they  are  not  required  to 
conform  to  his  views,  if  they  belong  to  any 
branch  of  the  universal  whig  party,  and  are  num- 
bered among  his  supporters. 

This  language  is  broad  enough  to  let  in  Mr. 
Seward  and  the  whole  of  his  abolition  follow- 
ers, at  the  same  time  that  their  appetite  for 
the  spoils  is  whetted  by  the  assurance  that  no 
honest  democrat  should  ever  hold  office  under  his 
administration,  and  'herefore  they  may  enjoy  a 
monopoly  of  all  the  honors  and  patronage  of  the 
government. 

Gentlemen,  I ask  you  to  bear  in  mind  that  this 
is  the  first  time  that  any  candidate  for  the  presi- 
dency, from  the  days  of  Washington  to  this  mo- 
ment, of  any  political  party  or  creed,  has  avowed 
that  the  entire  patronage  of  the  government  should 
be  confined  exclusively  to  the  men  who  sustained 
and  supported  the  policy  of  an  administration. 

This  humiliating  declaration  is  now  made  for 
the  first  time.  There  never  has  been  a democratic 
administration  in  this  Union  that  did  not  retain  at 
least  one-third  of  their  political  opponents  in  office. 
This  was  emphatically  the  case  under  the  adminis- 
trations of  General  Jackson,  Mr.  Van  Buren,and 
Mr.  Polk,  and  yet  the  whigs  have  been  in  the 
habit  of  pointing  to  those  as  the  most  proscriptive 
of  all  the  administrations  during  the  history  of 
our  republic. 

True  the  most  important  and  responsible  of  the 
offices  were  held  by  the  friends  of  the  administra- 
tion, yet  a large  portion,  from  one-third  to  one- 
half,  of  all  the  offices  were  invariably  enjoyed  by 
our  political  opponents.  But  General  Scott,  as  the 
candidate  of  this  anti-proscriptive  party  ^pledges 
himself  that  no  office,  high  or  low,  shall  ever  be 
held  by  a democrat,  no  matter  how  honest,  ca- 
pable, and  useful  he  may  have  been  in  the  public 
service.  Whatever  his  services  and  character,  he 
must  walk  the  plank.  Can  you  believe  that  the 
man  of  the  last  war,  the  hero  of  Lundy’s  Lane, 
the  victor  at  Chepultepec,  could  entertain  such 
sentiments  if  he  had  not  become  the  tame  instru- 
ment of  a heartless  demagogue?  Proscription 
such  as  he  avows  has  never  yet  been  heard  of  in 
this  country.  An  old  companion  in  arms — one, 
perhaps,  who  had  stood  by  him  in  those  very 
battles  to  which  I have  referred,  where  he.  may 
have  left  an  eye,  a leg,  an  arm ; who  may 
have  a family  dependant  for  bread  upon  his  con- 
tinuance in  office — must  make  room  for  a sleek 
whig  or  some  selfish  abolitionist.  Such  is  the 
doctrine  of  this  letter.  I cannot  believe  that  it 
is  the  sentiment  of  a soldier’s  heart.  1 had  rather 
believe  that  he  wrote  it  as  a king  writes,  through 
the  premier  who  is  to  manage  his  administration. 
[Great  applause.]  But  if  such  is  to  be  the  mo- 
rality, the  theory  and  the  practice  of  his  adminis- 
tration, why  not  elect  its  real  chief  to  bear  the 
responsibility?  [Cheers.]  Why  blot  out  the  re- 
fulgent glory  that  now  encircles  the  name  of  Scott, 
and  wither  the  laurels  which  his  profession  has 
won  him?  Why  repeat  the  story  of  Taylor? 


Ilis  honor,  too,  knew  not  a stain,  until  you  mac  |J([. 
him  a President,  with  Clayton  for  his  premier.  « 
Why  has  the  whig  party  forgotten  with  an  olj  j(|l 
livion  so  complete  all  that  it  once  said  about  mil  j(|| 
tary  politicians?  Time  was  when  they  preferre 
“ war,  pestilence,  and  famine,”  to  the  election  of  1',' 
military  chieftain,  referring  to  General  Jacksoi  j#ll 
who  did  not  at  the  time  of  his  nomination  hoi  ^ 
any  commission  in  the  army,  who  never  teas  ‘n 
soldier  by  profession,  and  who  had  entered  th  A 
army  only  in  the  hour  of  danger,  as  Pierce  did-  ^ 
and,  like  him,  sheathed  his  sword  when  the  ws  ffi, 
was  over.  [Great  applause.]  jj[g 

We  have  yet  to  see  a professional  Soldier  sue  ^ 
ceed  as  a statesman.  Washington  was  no  militar  #f( 
man  by  profession^  following  the  army  for  u 
living.  He  was  a civilian  in  the  fullest  sense  c jtc 
the  word.  He  was  reared  for  civil  pursuits.  H ^ 
held  civil  offices  both  [»efore  and  after  the  Revolu  |(j 
tion.  He  was  a member  of  the  Continental  Con  Kl!1 
gress  that  founded  the  Union,  and  a member  o jj0 
that  convention  which  framed  our  constitution  ^ 
He  knew  whether  naturalization  laws  ought  to  b ’ ’ 
uniform  or  not.  The  period  during  which  Wash  ,if] 
ington  held  a commission  in  the  army  constitute!  ([ 
indeed  but  a very  few  years  of  his  long  life.  H ^ 
was  the  first  of  our  citizen-soldiers.  [Cheers  am  (or 
applause.]  Andrew  Jaclcton,  too — 1|!( 

[Here  Mr.  Douglas  was  interrupted  by  lorn  j 
and  hearty  cheers.  He  continued — ] ^ 

Gentlemen,  it  does  my  heart  good  to  hear  dem  p, 
ocrats  applaud  the  name  of  Andrew  Jackson 
[Renewed  applause.]  Andrew  Jackson  started  ii  ,|;- 
life  as  a poor  attorney ; was  United  States  At  r 
torney  under  Washington,  a senator  of  tlieUnitet  (|j 
States  from  Tennessee,  and  a judge  of  the  su 
preme  court  of  his  State,  before  he  ever  drevi  ‘ 
a sword.  When  his  country  was  involved  it  “ 
war,  only,  did  he,  like  Washington,  leave  tin  jj0 
pursuits  of  a citizen  for  the  duties  of  a soldier  jr 
and  like  Washington,  when  war  was  at  an  end 
he  threw  up  his  commission  and  went  to  a farm  j.. 
Like  Washington,  also,  he  left  that  farm  agair  #j 
only  to  become  the  Presidentof  the  United  States  )([ 
He  was  not  a member  of  the  military  profession  )#( 
like  Washington,  he  was  never  more  than  a citi-  n 
zen-soldier.  Of  forty  years  of  public  service  no  (s 
more  than  five  or  six  were  spent  in  the  army,  ant  ^ 
the  rest  in  civil  life.  [Cheers.]  So  with  Harrison 
He  commenced  his  career  as  a young  physician — )( 
he  held  many  civil  offices  before  he  went  into  the  p( 
army  ; he  went  to  the  army  at  last  only  as  Mr.  p. 
Pierce  did,  because  there  was  war  in  the  land : 
and  when  he  was  nominated  for  the  presidency,  J 
he  had  long  since  ceased  to  hold  the  commission  j 
of  a military  officer. 

But  next  we  come  to  the  name  of  Taylor.  Pie  ( 
was  the  first,  the  very  first  professional  soldier 
who  ever  became  the  Chief  Magistrate  of  this  ,-f 
countrj'.  My  friends,  was  there  anything  in  the 
result  of  that  experiment  which  invites  you  to  repeat  jj 
it  ? If  he  had  lived  for  one  year  more  than  he  ^ 
did  with  that  Cabinet  about  him,  would  this  j. 
Union  be  extant  at  the  present  time?  1 believe 
General  Taylor  to  have  been  an  honest  and  a sin- 
cere  man  ; but  at  the  time  of  his  death  he  was  a 
simply  taking  a military  view  of  a civil  question  ; ^ 
and  neither  whig  nor  democrat,  who  is  at  all  in-  ^ 
formed  upon  the  history  of  that  period,  will  be 
disposed  to  deny  that  he  had  already  committedL 
himself  to  steps  which  would  have  led  inevitably  u 
to  a civil  war  between  the  federal  government  and 


7 


''several  sovereign  States  in  oar  Union,  and  thereby 
'have  rent  in  fragments  the  entire  confederation. 

’..J  Why  is  it  that  the  South  American  republics 
do  not  thrive — why  do  they  have  no  peace — why 
rldo  they  live  in  a perpetual  revolution  ? They  have 
-adopted  our  laws;  they  have  copied  our  constitu- 
tions ; yet  they  do  not  succeed,  while  we  do.  Why 
.do  not  like  causes  produce  like  effects  ? Because, 
jwhile  between  their  institutions  and  ours  there  is 
'a  good  parallel,  in  their  administration  of  them 
"they  make  a grand  difference.  In  those  republics 
l~the  commanders  of  their  armies  are  invariably 
''candidates  for  the  presidency,  whiie  with  us,  such 
has  never  been  the  case  until  the  present  time.  In 
' "those  republics,  when  a civilian  is  the  candidate 
'of  one  side  and  the  commander-in-chief  is  set  up 
jby  the  opposite  party,  the  civilian  is  generally 
^elected  by  the  people;  but  the  soldier  invariably 
"'takes  possession  of  ihe  effi  c by  the  sicord.  Hence 
'their  civil  wars,  resulting  in  anarchy  and  despot- 
asm,  and  destroying  every  vestige  of  liberty. 
'Now,  we  are  importing  this  unhappy  policy,  tins 
'Mexican  policy,  into  the  United  States.  We  are 
. 'copying  misfortune — borrowing  a fatal  fault.  This 
^{practice  of  setting  up  the  commanders  of  the  army 
Hfor  the  highest  civil  offices,  1 repeat,  is  an  innova- 
tion on  our  theory  and  our  practice,  and  the  his- 
tory of  those  miserable  sister  States  ought  to  settle 
the  question  of  its  expediency. 

It  was  the  hand  of  Providence  that  saved  us 
_:from  our  first  and  only  military  administration. 
“'Taylor  was  gathered  to  his  fathers;  Fillmore 
gieigned  in  his  stead — a man  who,  previous  to  that 
.“ftime,  had  never  furnished  such  proofs  of  superi- 
‘ijority  of  statesmanship  as  to  cause  him  to  be  look- 
ed to  as  a candidate  for  the  first  office — a man  of 
^respectable  talents,  respectable  character,  and  of 
' gentlemanly  deportment,  who  has  performed  no 
■^great  and  striking  act  to  signalize  his  administra- 
~Tion  in  history.  Yet,  regarding  his  official  term 
gin  contrast  with  the  military  administration  that 
'^preceded  him,  we  feel — ay,  all  of  us  feel — that 
^Fillmore  was  a real  gotfse?td  ! It  was  the  calming 
“ of  the  waters  when  the  ship  was  sinking  in  the 
jtempest.  All,  therefore,  look  kindly  on  Mr.  Fill- 
' more,  and  we  like  to  give  him  all  the  consolation 
;‘we  can  after  the  bad  treatment  he  received  at  Bal- 
timore, because  he  w as  a whig,  and  yet  did  no  harm 
; to  the  country ! 

5,t  Yet,  for  the  simple  reason  that  he  did  no  harm 
” to  his  country — ay,  because  he  has  been  a national 
i President,  and  because  he  has  kept  within  the 
bounds  of  his  official  oath — Mr.  Fillmore  has  been 
‘ repudiated  by  his  party.  Is  not  this  so?  Was  not 
■ ’ Mr.  Fillmore  defeated  by  the  abolition  sentiment 
and  abolition  party  of  the  North,  and  by  that 
. alone?  Did  not  every  southern  State  stick  to  him 
: to  the  death?  Could  all  the  whigs  in  the  Union, 
except  Seward  and  the  abolition  whigs,  have  de- 
feated him  at  Baltimore?  And  would  Seward 
or  any  abolition  whig  have  raised  a cry  upon 
Millard  Fillmore  if  he  had  acted  in  office  upon 
the  principles  of  his  Buffalo  letter,  instead  of  on 
the  principles  of  the  Compromise  of  ’50  ? 

But  though  we  cannot  be  otherwise  than  grate- 
ful for  a Fillmore  administration  in  the  place  of 
a Taylor  regency — 'and  though  we  must  admit, 
that  on  the  subject  of  slavery  Mr.  Fillmore  has 
done  tolerably  well  for  a whig;  yet  there  is 
another  view  to  be  taken  of  the  present  adminis- 
tration’s career.  It  is  a view  of  certain  features 
in  it  for  which  the  whig  party  is  responsible,  even 


more  than  Mr.  Fillmore  himself.  If  my  time 
were  not  already  exhausted,  in'o  many  transac- 
tions r.f  the  present  administration  ! should  like 
to  inquire.  I should  like,  for  i.  stance,  to  ask  why 
it  was  that  when  Spain  broke  the  stipulations 
of  her  treat}?  with  us  and  butchered  fifty  of  our 
citizens  without  a trial,  we  bad  to  make  apologies 
instead  of  Spain.  It  matieis  not  whether  the  parti- 
cipators in  ihe  Cuban  affair  were  right  or  wrong. 
Admit  that  they  were  wrong.  Still,  under  the 
liberal  stipulations  of  the  treaty  they  were  entitled 
to  a fair  and  open  trial,  with  forms  distinctly  de- 
signated. But  they  were  butchered  without  a 
chance  of  lav/  ; murdered  in  cold  blond  ; and  then 
we  apologized  because  an  irresponsible  mob,  com- 
ing no  one  knows  whence,  going  no  one  knows 
where,  tore  down  a house  in  New  Orleans.  The 
blood  of  our  countrymen  cried  from  the  ground, 
and  there  was  no  ear  for  the  cry  at  Washing- 
ton. But  for  the  Spanish  consul’s  bouse  we  made 
an  humble  apology  ; we  put  our  forehead  in  the 
dust  before  offended  royalty  ; and  th  flag  of  s’ars 
was  trailed  in  the  dust  before  the  banner  of  Castile. 

I should  like  to  inquire,  too,  into  the  policy 
adopted  by  the  whig  party  relative  to  the  South 
American  republics  and  the  rights  of  Great  Britain 
over  Central  America.  I should  like  to  know 
why  it  is  that  the  United  States  cannot  make 
treaties  with  independent  powers  on  our  o wn  con- 
tinent without  consulting  the  British  cabinet,  and 
without  the  interference  of  English  agents.  Would 
the  Nicaragua  business  have  stained  the  page  of 
our  diplomatic  history,  if  a uemocratic  adminis- 
tratihn  had  occupied  ihe  depaitments  of  our  gov- 
ernment during  the  last  four  years?  Could  any 
others  than  whig  politicians  have  truckled,  as 
Clayton  and  his  associates  have  done  throughout 
that  transaction,  to  British  power? 

I should  like  to  have  compared  the  expenditure 
of  the  late  whig  administration  with  that  of  for- 
mer democratic  governments.  1 should  like  to  get 
some  explanation  why  it  is  that  the  expenses  of 
this  government  have  suddenly  increased  from 
about  thirty  to  near  sixty  millions  of  dollars.  1 
should  like  to  know  why  a whig  administration 
cost  more  in  profound  peace  than  a democratic 
administration  does  during  a great  war. 

I should  like  to  hear  some  explanation  of  the 
way  in  which  the  whig  party  reconciles  its  pro- 
fessions about  proscription  during  the  last  canvass 
with  the  practice  of  its  administration  since  the 
commencement  of  its  official  term  They  pro- 
mised that  none  but  the  incapable  and  the  dishon- 
est should  be  proscribed,  and  then  they  proscribed 
nearly  every  democrat  in  office.  Now,  are  we  to 
understand  that  every  democrat  is  incapa’oie'and 
dishonest?  Docs  the  whig  pariy  give  his  xpla- 
nation  of  ita  conduct?  Scarcely  so.  Yet  such  is 
the  inference  they  would  have  others  o m ke. 
Not  content  with  depriving  men  of  their  '.ad, 
they  turn  them  away  with  a tarnishe  • o e.  1 
would  not  complain  of  iheiatepioscrif.il..!  r me 
true  reason  was  alleged  for  it.  But  wha  a .ge 
is  too  strong  for  the  iniquity,  the  ii  a-  !•  .s  • unity 
and  selfishness  of  me  i isinua'ed  slander  ne.lnnd 
which  they  seek  shelier? 

However,  there  will  be  . • v.rophuu  n this 

score  relative  t<>  meii  present  ea  idi  lati  • m- 

disb.es  the  SW'  id  in  . van  e.  H mr 

without  quarte.  fiefor  h mi,  ■ • u t v u in 

featherandepaul'  W.-  l my  im  i -n  a e 
deluded  by  this  ma  as  you  w n y y ■ . all 


8 


that  I can  say  is,  that  you  deserve  your  fate.  But 
I do  not  fear  that  you  will  or  can  be.  We  are 
now  coming  to  a fair  trial  of  the  relative  strength 
and  numbers  of  the  parties;  and  in  such  a contest 
when  did  we  fail?  Let  us  then  go  to  work  boldly 
Let  us  throw  false  delicacy  aside,  and,  disregard- 
ing whig  friends,  let  us  expose  the  political  con- 
duct of  our  adversaries  withont  fear,  yet  without 
imitating  their  assaults  upon  private  character. 
If,  in  so  doing,  we  shall  be  true  to  ourselves, 
neither  abolitionism  nor  federalism  will  prevail 
against  us,  and  the  success  of  our  principles, 
with  the  election  of  those  who  represent  them,  is 
already  a foregone  conclusion.  [Tremendous  and 
long-continued  applause.] 

It  was  eleven  o’clock  when  Mr.  Douglas  con- 
cluded. A vote  of  thanks  to  him  for  his  able 
discourse  was  then  proposed  by  the  president  of 
the  association,  and  unanimously  passed  by  the 
meeting ; and  after  nine  rousing  cheers  for  the 
“ Young  Giant  of  the  West,”  the  assemblage  dis- 
persed. Subsequently,  we  understand,  a dinner 
was  tendered  to  Mr.  Douglas  by  the  Democratic 
Association,  which  he  declined  on  account  of  busi- 


ness at  Washington,  which  compelled  him  to  i 
turn  thither  on  Saturday  night. 

W.  W.  Crump,  esq  , having  addressed  t! 
meeting, 

Robert  G.  Scott,  esq.,  rose  and  said:  B; 
fore  we  separate,  Mr.  President,  1 trust  it  w 
be  the  good  pleasure  of  this  Meeting  not  to  pa 
with  our  honored  and  respected  friend  who  hi 
delivered  to  us  one  of  the  most  thrilling,  beautifu 
and  admirable  addresses  I have  ever  listened  ti 
without  at  least  giving  some  token  of  our  n 
spect,  our  gratitude,  and  our  thanks  for  that  eflor 
I propose,  therefore,  that  this  association  now  ri 
tarn  their  most  cordial  and  sincere  thanks  t 
Judge  Douglas  for  the  very  cogent,  able,  ari 
eloquent  address  which-  he  has  delivered  thi 
evening. 

The  motion  was  unanimously  agreed  io,  nin 
cheers  were  given  for  Judge  Douglas,  and  th- 
meeting  adjourned. 


REMASKS 


SENATOR 

OP 

DOUGLAS,  OF  ILLINOIS, 

\ 

IN  REPLY  TO 

SENATOR  COLLAMER, 


KANSAS 

ON 

TERRITORIAL  AFFAIRS. 

DELIVERED  IN  THE  SENATE  OP  THE  UNITED  STATES,  APRIL  4,  1856. 


WASHINGTON : 

PRINTED  AT  THE  UNION  OFFICE. 

1856. 


V :li  : 3 H 


r 


- v ' : - ( - VI 


* . . J I ■*  / > l 


' 

■'  ■ i ' V,  v J ' >’■;  : " : ;-v  V h / i }\A  r. 

i \ 


■ 


: Vi  A !. 

.’ft#  f 


I 


SPEECH. 


Mr.  COLLAMER  having  concluded  his  speech  on  the  bill  reported  from  the  Committee 
on  Territories  to  authorize  the  people  of  the  Territory  of  Kansas  to  form  a constitution  and 
State  government,  preparatory  to  their  admission  into  the  Union  when  they  have  the  re- 
quisite population — 

Mr.  DOUGLAS  said  : I do  not  propose  to  go  into  a general  discussion  of  this  subject  to- 
day ; but  there  are  a few  points  in  the  course  of  the  remarks  indulged  in  by  the  senator 
from  Vermont  which  it  becomes  my  duty  to  notice.  I do  not  wish  to  be  understood  as  inti- 
mating that,  in  the  general,  the  senator  has  not  conducted  the  discussion  in  a spirit  of  cour- 
tesy and  kindness  ; on  the  contrary,  I take  pleasure  in  saying  that  he  treated  the  various 
topics  in  a temper  and  good  humor  worthy  of  imitation.  I agree  with  him  that,  in  the  dis- 
cussion of  great  principles  of  public  policy,  harsh  terms  and  offensive  epithets  should  not  be 
indulged.  But  I do  not  perceive  the  relevancy  of  his  lecture  in  the  conclusion  of  his  speech 
against  the  use  of  the  terms  “black  republicans”  and  “ black  republicanism,”  which,  he 
fears,  is  calculated  to  lower  the  standing  and  character  of  the  Senate  in  the  country,  and 
with  foreign  countries. 

Mr.  COLLAMER.  I did  not  say  that  the  Senator  from  Illinois  used  any  term  of  that 
kind. 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  Of  course  not  ; neither  will  my  remarks  apply  to  the  senator  from 
Vermont.  He  has  said  that  the  word  “ black  republican  ” has  been  used,  and  that  it  is  not 
well  to  make  the  people  of  Europe  imagine  or  suppose  that  all  those  gentlemen  who  are 
opposed  to  the  Nebraska  bill  are  black  republicans.  Let  the  senator  remember  that  the 
watchword  of  the  party  with  which  he  acts  is  opposition  to  the  “ dictation  and  aggressions  of 
the  slave  power!”  The  leaders  of  that  party  can  find  no  more  choice  and  elegant  expres- 
sions by  which  to  designate  the  democratic  senators,  even  in  debate  here,  than  “ dough- 
faces and  tools  of  the  slave  power!” 

Mr.  COLLAMER.  Have  I said  anything  of  that  kind  ? •- — -r 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  Not  at  all,  sir.  It  is  said  by  this  party  that  the  Nebraska  bill  was 
passed  through  the  Senate  in  obedience  to  the  dictation  of  the  slave  power  ; that,  although  it 
received  a majority  of  the  votes  of  all  the  senators  from  the  North,  a majority,  of  the  South,  a 
majority  of  the  whig  party  and  a majority  of  the  democratic  party  in  the  Senate,  they  all 
acted  in  subserviency  to  the  slave  power?  Now,  would  you  like  to  have  it  go  all  over  Eu- 
rope, and  all  over  the  world,  that  the  Senate  is  governed  by  the  slave  power?  _ U 

Mr.  COLLAMER.  I have  said  nothing  of  the  kind. 

Mr.  DOULASS  I know  that;  but  the  gentleman  has  been  criticising  the  word  “black 
republican.”  He  says  that  he  did  not  refer  to  me  when  he  alluded  to  it.  Then,  as  I am 
criticising  the  use  of  the  word  “ slave  power,”  and  he  did  not  use  it,  of  course  I do  not  refer 
to  him.  Why  does  he  complain  ? We  are  each  speaking  in  general  terms. 

Mr.  COLLAMER.  I used  no  such  term. 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  The  gentleman  had  a right  to  criticise  the  use  of  the  word  “ black  re- 
publican,” and  he  say's  that  he  did  not  allude  to  me. 

Mr.  COLLAMER.  I do  not  remember  to  have  heard  the  senator  use  the  term. 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  Then,  why  does  the  gentleman  complain  of  my  criticising  the  use  of 
the  word  “ .-lave  power,”  when  I do  not  attribute  its  use  to  him  ? 1 only  wish  to  show  that 

when  gentlemen  come  to  read  lectures  to  us  about  the  courtesies  of  debate  they  had  better 
criticise  and  admoni-h  their  own  political  friends.  Before  senators  read  lectures  to  this  side  of 
the  chamber  in  regard  to  the  terms  which  should  be  used  in  debate  they  had  better  arrest  the 
progress  of  that  species  of  vituperation  and  abuse  which  has  been  indulged  in  so  freely  by 
their  own  coadjutors  on  the  other  side  ? These  lectures  will  come  with  better  grace,  and  we 
may  receive  them  with  more  favor,  when  they  shall  have  been  applied  to  the  senators  on  the 
other  side  of  the  chamber  who  may  have  deserved  them,  and  who,  it  is  to  be  hoped,  will 
profit  by  them.  Let  the  reformation  begin  at  home.  Let  them  correct  their  own  household 
before  they  interfere  with  ours.  However,  this  course  shows  that  they  are  consistent  with 
their  own  professions,  at  least  on  the  point  that  they  prefer  “ foreign  interference  and  officious 
intermeddling  with  other  people’s  business,”  as  illustrated  by  the  principles  of  the  minority 
report,  to  that  other  principle  of  “ non-intervention”  which  teaches  every  community  to  mind 


4 


their  own  business  and  let  their  neighbor’s  alone,  according  to  the  doctrines  of  the  majority 
report  and  the  principles  of  the  Nebraska  bill? 

Now,  sir,  I desire  to  say  a few  words  upon  the  point  last  discussed  by  the  senator  from 
Vermont,  in  which  he  assumed  that  the  free-soilers  in  Kansas  organized  resistance  to  the 
local  laws  and  lormed  a constitution  and  State  government  only  for  the  purpose  of  applying 
for  admission  into  the  Union,  and  that  all  their  proceedings  were  conditional  upon  their 
“ acceptance  and  ratification  by  Congress.”  The  senator  from  Vermont  seems  to  be  under  the 
impression  that  the  majority  of  the  committee  in  their  report,  and  I in  my  speech  vindicating 
their  report,  have  taken  the  ground  that  it  was  no  part  of  the  purpose  of  the  free-soilers  in 
Kansas,  in  forming  the  constitution  and  State  government,  to  apply  for  admission  into  the 
Union. 

Mr.  COLLAMER.  I understood  that  to  be  the  leading  feature  of  the  report  on  that  point. 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  Not  at  all.  We  show  that  they  took  these  proceedings  with  the  view 
of  applying  for  admission  into  the  Union  in  the  first  instance  ; and  in  the  event  of  their  re- 
jection by  Congress,  with  the  ultimate  purpose  of  resisting  the  laws  and  subverting  the  gov- 
ernment by  force  and  violence  which  Congress  had  established  in  the  Territory.  Their 
movement  contemplated  the  two  alternatives,  and  anticipating  failure  in  the  first,  they 
resolved  that,  “ in  the  mean  time,”  they  would  prepare  for  the  latter  by  organizing  and 
disciplining  military  companies,  and  providing  arms  and  munitions  of  war ! Hence  they 
resolved  that  they  would  submit  only  for  a,  time,  while  they  could  try  peaceable  means  by 
applying  to  the  courts  and  to  Congress  ; and  in  the  event  of  failure  in  the  proper  tribunals, 
which  event  they  anticipated  and  provided  against,  they  would  then  “ resist  to  a bloody 
issue  !”  This  was  their  fixed  purpose  and  ultimate  design,  as  proclaimed  to  the  world  boldly 
and  fearlessly  in  the  resolutions  and  proceedings  of  a convention,  composed  of  delegates  from 
every  county  in  the  Territory,  at  Big  Springs,  on  the  5th  and  6th  of  September. 

How  does  the  senator  answer  that  point?  By  thrusting  in  the  foreground  their  proposed 
application  to  Congress  for  admission,  and  carefully  concealing  the  fact  that  they  had  resolved, 
hi  the  event  of  their  application  being  rejected  by  Congress,  to  resist  to  a bloody  issue!  He 
does  not  deny  the  undeniable  fact  that  they  did  resolve  to  resist  the  constituted  authorities  in 
that  event.  He  does  not  deny  the  authenticity  of  the  speech  of  Governor  Reeder  in  the 
convention  while  accepting  the  nomination  for  Congress,  (as  contained  in  the  majority  re- 
port,) in  which  he  said  that,  in  the  event  of  failure  “in  the  proper  tribunals,”  then 
“ there  is  one  more  chance  for  justice  ;”  “ God  has  provided,  in  the  eternal  frame  of  things, 
redress  for  every  wrong  that  “ there  remains  to  us  still  the  steady  eye  and  the  strong  arm  ;” 
and  that  “we  must  conquer,  or  mingle  the  bodies  of  the  oppressors  with  those  of 

THE  OPPRESSED  UPON  THE  SOIL  WHICH  THE  DECLARATION  OF  INDEPENDENCE  NO  LONGER 
PROTECTS.” 

The  language  is,  “ we  must  conquer  !”  Whom?  Who  are  the  enemies  that  Governor 
Reeder  and  his  confederates  propose  to  conquer?  The  “proper  tribunals!” — the  courts  of 
justice  for  sustaining  the  validity  of  the  laws— the  executive  officers  for  maintaining  the 
supremacy  of  the  laws — Congress  for  refusing  to  admit  Kansas  into  the  Union  without  one- 
third  the  requisite  population,  and  with  a constitution  made  by  a political  party,  and  pre- 
sented here  with  a threat  of  a “ bloody  issue”  in  the  event  that  the  Senate  and  House  of 
Representatives  dare  to  reject  the  application!  These  are  the  “proper  tribunals”  whose 
authority  is  to  be  resisted  “ with  the  steady  eye  and  the  strong  arm.”  These  are  the  proper 
tribunals  whose  officers  are  to  be  conquered,  or  the  free-soilers  of  Kansas  “ will  mingle  the 
bodies  of  the  oppressors  with  those  of  the  oppressed  upon  the  soil  which  the  Declaration  of 
Independence  no  longer  protects!” 

Did  not  the  senator  from  Vermont  know  of  this  speech  of  Governor  Reeder?  Did  he  not 
know  that  the  sentiments  contained  in  this  speech  were  endorsed  and  affirmed  in  the  resolu- 
tions of  the  convention  which  nominated  Governor  Reeder  for  Congress?  Did  he  not  know 
that  the  very  persons  who  formed  the  constitution  and  State  government  at  Topeka  voted  for 
Governor  Reeder  for  Congress  because  of  the  opinions  and  purposes  set  forth  in  this  speech, 
and  his  pledge  to  become  their  champion  and  abide  their  fate?  Governor  Reeder  was  elected 
to  Congress  upon  the  platform  of  principles  embraced  in  this  speech  and  the  resolutions  of 
the  Big  Springs  convention.  It  was  this  platform,  and  Governor  Reeder’s  advocacy  of  it, 
which  induced  the  whole  free-soil  party— or,  as  they  now  call  themselves,  free  State  party — 
to  cease  their  opposition  to  Governor  Reeder,  and  adopt  him  as  their  champion  and  standard- 
bearer.  It  was  this  platform  which  brought  him  to  the  House  of  Representatives  as  a dele- 
gate, and  to  this  chamber  as  a senator,  demanding  admission  on  behalf  and  in  the  name  of 
those  who  formed  the  constitution  and  State  government  at  Topeka,  resolved  “to  conquer, 
or  mingle  the  bodies  of  the  oppressors  with  those  of  the  oppressed  upon  the  soil  which  the 
Declaration  of  Independence  no  longer  protects!”  But,  in  the  face  of  these  facts,  and  with 
a full  knowledge  of  them,  the  senator  from  Vermont  tells  us  that  the  free  State  movement  in 
Kansas  did  not  contemplate  rebellion  or  resistance  to  the  authority  of  this  government,  but 
was  all  dependent  upon  “ the  acceptance  and  ratification  by  Congress.”  How  does  he  at- 
tempt to  sustain  his  proposition?  First,  by  ignoring  and  excluding  the  proceedings  of  the 
Big  Springs  convention,  upon  the  ground  that  it  was  out  of  the  line  of  the  history  of  the  freo 
State  movement.  Secondly,  by  ignoring  and  suppressing  the  entire  proceedings  of  the  con- 
vention which  formed  the  constitution  at  Topeka,  without  assigning  any  reason  for  this  latter 


5 


omission.  Were  not  the  proceedings  of  the  convention  which  formed  the  constitution  within 
the  line  of  the  history  of  that  instrument  and  the  purposes  of  its  makers?  But  the  proceed- 
ings of  the  constitutional  convention,  as  well  as  the  territorial  convention  at  Big  Springs, 
must  all  be  excluded  in  order  to  exculpate  those  who  controlled  the  whole  movement  from 
being  justly  subjected  to  the  consequences  of  organized  resistance  to  the  laws  of  the  Terri- 
tory” and  defiance  to  the  authority  of  the  federal  government  and  its  “ proper  tribunals.” 
The  senator  from  Vermont  will  listen  to  no  other  evidence — will  receive  none  which  is  not 
to  be  found  in  the  Lawrence  meeting  on  the  14th  of  August,  and  the  convention  at  Topeka 
on  the  19th  of  September.  It  is  true  that  the- Lawrence  meeting  was  the  first  to  propose  a 
convention  at  Topeka.  The  preamble  to  the'  resolution  assigned  as  a reason  that  “ the  people 
of  Kansas  have  been  since  its  settlement,  and  now  are,  without  any  law-making  power.” 
The  second  step  in  the  series  of  events  was  the  adoption  of  a resolution  by  the  Big  Springs 
convention  approving  of  the  call  by  the  Lawrence  meeting,  for  the  reason  that  it  “ repudiated 
the  acts  of  the  so-called  Kansas  legislative  assembly. " By  t"is  resolution  the  movement 
became  general  and  extended  all  over  the  Territory.  The  Lawrence  meeting  was  a small 
affair — a mere  local  town  meeting — while  the  Big  Springs  convention  was  composed  of  cb;lr.-.  T 
o-ates  from  every  county  in  the  Territory.  Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  the  movement,  which  I 
Ead  its  first  demonstration  in  a town  meeting  at  Lawrence,  on  the  plan  of  treating  the  legis- 
lative assembly  which  Congress  had  established  in  the  Territory  as  a nullity,  became  general 
and  coextensive  with  \he  limits  of  the  Territor}^  by  means  of  the  Big  Springs  convention, 
iciih  the  distinct  understanding  that  in  the  event  Congress  should  reject  their  application  for  admis- 
sion they  icould  “resist  to  a bloody  issue.”  It  also  appears  from  the  same  procet dings  that 
they  so  far  anticipated  the  event,  now  certain  to  happen,  that  Congress  would  reject  their 
application,  that  they  determined  then  to  prepare  for  “ the  bloody  issue”  by  recommending 
to  their  friends  throughout  the  Territory  “ in  the  mean  time  to  organize  and  discipline  volunteer 

companies,  and  the  procurement  and  preparation  of  arms.”  

I now  submit  the  question  to  the  Senate  whether  the  proceedings  of  the  convention  at  HTg 
Springs — at  which  the  ultimate  purposes  of  the  whole  movement  are  distinctly  declared  in 
the  event  Congress  should  reject  their  application — in  which  provision  is  made  lor  organizing 
and  disciplining  military  companies  in  every  county  of  the  Territory,  and  for  procuring  arms 
and  munitions  of  war  in  anticipation  of  that  probable  event — are  so  far  outside  of  the  line  of 
the  true  history  of  the  free  State  movement  that  it  is  irrelevant  and  improper  to  bring  them 
before  the  Senate  as  illustrative  of  the  real  objects  and  ultimate  designs  of  those  who  origi- 
nated and  controiled  them  ? I considered  it  more  respectful  to  the  Senate,  and  consistent 
with  a fair  and  impartial  exposition  of  the  subject  , to  present  all  the  material  facts  calculated 
to  shed  light  upon  its  true  character  and  ultimate  objects,  than  to  withhold  and  keep  out  of 
view  the  larger  portion  of  them.  The  senator  from  Vermont  thought  otherwise,  and  prepared 
the  minority  report  accordingly.  Let  the  Senate  decide  between  us.  But  1 have  been  as 
much  surprised  at  the  reasons  assigned  by  the  senator  from  Vermont  for  excluding  the  pro-- 
ceedings  of  the  Big  Springs  convention  as  I have  been  at  the  act  itself.  The  reasons  are 
that  the  convention  at  Big  Springs,  although  representing  every  county  in  the  Territory,  was 
a party  convention,  composed  of  and  representing-  only  the  free  State  party,  and  hence  its  pro- 
ceedings ought  not  to  be  considered  as  a fair  expression  of  the  opinions  of  the  whole  people  of 
Kansas.  Was  not  the  meeting  at  Lawrence  on  the  14th  of  August  a party  meeting  in  the  same 
sense  ? True,  they  called  it  a “ people's  meeting.”  But  were  there  any  people  there  except  free 
State  men  or  abolitionists?  Were  any  others. invited  or  expected  ? Was  not  the  convention  at 
Topeka  on  the  19th  of  September  a party  meeting  in  the  same  sense  ? Was  it  not  composed 
avowedly  and  exclusively  of  free  State  men  with  as  much  certainty  as  the  Big  Springs  con- 
vention? Did  it  not  assemble  in  pursuance  of  the  call  made  at  Lawrence,  and  endorsed  at 

Big  Springs,  and  for  the  well-known  and  avowed  purpose  of  carrying  out  the  objects  disclosed 
in  the  proceedings  of  both  of  those  meetings  or  conventions?  How,  then,  can  you  separate 
them,  and  call  the  one  a party  meeting  and  the  others  people’s  meetings,  when  they  were 
composed  of  the  same  persons,  and  assembled  for  the  furtherance  of  the  same  common  object, 
although  they  may  at  times  have  passed  under  different  names?  Was  not  the  convention 
which  assembled  at  Topeka  on  the  fourth  Tuesday  of  October,  and  formed  the  constitution, 
also  a party  convention  in  the  same  sense?  Was  not  the  whole  movement,  in  all  its  parts, 
from  its  incipient  steps  at  Lawrence  on  the  14th  of  August  to  the  organization  of  a bogus  legis- 
lature and  the  inauguration  of  a mock  governor  at  Topeka  on  the  4th  of  March,  a party  move- 
ment? If,  then,  the  senator  from  Vermont  is  right  in  excluding  the  proceedings  of  the  Big 
Springs  convention  upon  the  ground  that  it  was  a party  convention,  and  hence  disqualified 
from  participating  in  the  formation  of  a constitution  and  State  government,  he  must  reject 
and  suppress  the  whole  movement  for  the  same  reason  ! But  the  senator  from  Vermont  was 
not  content  with  excluding  the  proceedings  of  the  Big  Springs  convention,  in  order  to 
exculpate  his  freesoil  friends  in  Kansas  from  the  crime  of  meditating  rebellion  and 
treason  against  the  United  States.  He  was  enabled  to  brush  those  proceedings  out  of  his 
way,  upon  the  assumption  that  they  were  the  acts  and  doings  of  a party,  and  not  of  the 
whole  people,  and,  consequently,  not  within  the  true  line  of  the  history  of  this  free  State 
movement.  But  still  there  remains  directly  in  his  path,  and  staring  him  in  the  face,  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  convention  which  formed  the  constitution  with  which  he  proposes  to  bring 
Kansas  into  the  Union  as  a State  ! The  proceedings  of  that  constitutional  convention  are 
equally  fatal  to  the  position  he  has  assumed  for  exculpating  the  authors  of  these  revolutionary 


6 


movements.  Copious  extracts  of  the-e  proceedings  are  set  out  in  the  majority  report,  and 
were  referred  to  the  other  day  in  my  speech,  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that  the  constitution 
was  formed  expressly  with  the  view  of  putting  the  State  government  in  immediate  operation, 
in  conflict  witli  the  Territorial  government,  without  waiting  for  tiie  action  of  Congress  on 
their  application  for  admission.  The  question  was  distinctly  made  upon  a resolution  of  in- 
struction to  the  committees,  and  after  full  debate  was  decided  in  the  affirmative,  and  the  con- 
stitution formed  accordingly.  In  the  debate  Mr.  Delahay,  who  has  since  been  elected  to  re- 
present the  new  State  in  Congress,  opposed  the  proposition  upon  the  ground  that  it  did  con- 
stitute an  act  of  “ rebellion.”  On  the  other  hand,  the  friends  of  the  proposition  defended  it 
as  a revolutionary  right,  sanctioned  by  the  example  of  our  fathers  in  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence, and  declared  that  they  would  not  “wait  an  hour  for  the  action  of  Congress.  ” In 
view  of  these  facts,  was  it  not  prudent  in  the  senator  from  Vermont  to  maintain  an  ominous 
silence  in  respect  to  the  proceedings  of  the  constitutional  convention  ? He  could  not  have 
produced  these  facts  either  in  his  report  or  his  speech  without  annihilating  every  proposition 
which  he  assumed  as  the  basis  of  his  defence  of  his  freesoil  friends  in  Kansas.  lie  could  not 
have  referred  to  these  facts  without  betraying  a consciousness  that  they  had  resolved  on  “re- 
bellion” against  the  authority  of  the  United  States.  He  could  not  make  the  excuse,  as  in 
the  case  of  the  Big  Springs  convention,  that  the  proceedings  of  the  convention  which  formed 
the  constitution  were  outside  of  the  line  of  the  history  of  that  instrument,  and  hence  furnished 
no  evidence  of  the  intentions  of  its  makers.  He  could  avail  himself  of  none  of  these  modes 
of  escape  ; and,  consequently,  there  was  no  other  course  left  open  to  him  except  to  pass  over 
the  proceedings  of  the  constitutional  convention  in  silence,  and  then  draw  conclusions  directly 
the  reverse  of  those  to  which  he  would  have  been  driven  had  he  presented  the  whole  history 
ef  the  movement.  Who  can  fail  to  admire  the  prudence  which  dictated  this  ominous  silence 
on  a point  so  important  as  to  lie  conclusive  of  the  matter  in  controversy? 

Tiie  senator  from  Vermont  desires  to  know  what  the  secret  military  organization  had  to  do 
with  the  questions  under  discussion.  I will  inform  him  what  it  had  to  do  with  thorn.  It  will 
be  recollected  that  the  Big  Springs  convention  resolved  to  “ resist  to  a bloody  issue”  so  soon 
as  peaceable  remedies  should  fail,  and,  in  anticipation  of  such  failure,  recommended  to  their 
friends  throughout  tire  Territory , “ in  the  meantime,”  to  procure  arms  and  munitions  of  war. 
Inasmuch  as  this  recommendation  has  not  been  publicly  executed,  it  was  important  to  know  by 
what  secret  means  the  military  had  been  organized  and  disciplined,  and  such  large  quantities 
of  Sharpe’s  rifles,  and  cannon,  powder,  and  lead,  and  other  munitions  of  war,  had  been  pro- 
vided. Flence  1 he  importance  of  exposing  this  secret  military  organization,  called  the  “Kan- 
sas Legion,”  and  showing  the  revolting  and  profane  oaths  by  which  all  its  members  were 
bound  to  fight  in  a common  cause,  obey  secret  signs,  unknown  to  their  fellow-citizens,  and 
to'vote  at  all  electiqns  for  such  candidates  as  the  secret  order  should  dictate,  thus  placing  tile 
whole  power  of  the  Territory,  civil  and  military,  together  with  the  lives  and  property  of  all 
the  inhabitants,  at  the  mercy  of  a secret  body  of  armed  men,  who  met  and  laid  their  plans  in 
the  dark  hour  of  the  night,  when  honest  and  unsuspecting  men  should  be  asleep.  It  illus- 
trates the  true  character  of  the  whole  movement.  It  shows  that  it  possessed  all  the  attributes 
of  a conspiracy — that  its  aim  was  to  subvert,  by  violence  and  fraud,  the  government  which 
Congress  had  established  in  the  Territory,  instead  of  peaceably  assembling  to  petition  for  the 
redress  of  grievances. 

The  senator  says  also  that  there  is  no  evidence  at  all  that  this  secret  military  legion,  which 
he  tries  to  ridicule,  had  any  connexion  with  the  State  movement  whatever  ; that  they  were 
not  the  same  men. 

Mr.  C1 ILLAMER.  I said  that  I did  not  know  whether  they  were  or  not. 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  I will  tell  j'ou  how  to  ascertain  it.  In  the  charter  of  the  legion  appoint- 
ing persons  to  form  new  lodg-es  you  find  the  name  of  “ .1.  K.  Goodin  as  grand  quartermas- 
ter.” In  the  Big  Springs  convention  you  find  the  same  J.  K Goodin.  And  again  you  find 
his  name  in  the  proceedings  of  the  convention  at  Topeka  ; so  with  many  other  names  which 
figure  conspicuously  and  alternately  in  the  secret  army  and  in  the  public  meetings  and  con- 
ventions. 

Hence  the  senator  could  have  known,  if  he  had  taken  the  pains  to  have  investigated  the 
matterj  that  the  secret  military  organization  and  the  public  meetings  and  conventions  to 
which  1 have  had  occasion  to  refer  so  often,  were  managed  and  controlled  by  the  same  body 
of  men  for  the  accomplishment  of  a common  object.  I now  submit  the  question  to  the 
judgment  of  the  Senate,  whether  I have  not  fully  sustained  the  position  that  those  move- 
ments in  Kansas  were  revolutionary  in  their  character,  having  for  their  object  the  subversion 
of  the  territorial  government  established  by  Congress  by  a resort  to  force  and  violence,  in  the 
event  that  peaceable  measures  should  fail  to  accomplish  their  objects  ? The  senator  from 
Vermont  attempts  to  break  the  force  of  my  argument,  and  at  the  same  time  excuse  himself 
for  withholding  the  most  important  portion  of  the  evidence  by  retorting  on  me  that  I have 
not  set  out  the  proceedings  of  those  meetings  and  conventions  in  full  in  the  majority  report. 
He  does  not  complain  that  I have  not  given  a fair  abstract  of  the  proceedings  of  each;  but 
the  allegation  is  that  I have  not  incorporated  into  it  all  the  speeches,  resolutions,  proclama- 
tions, addresses,  and  unimportant  details,  which  would  have  made  a vast  mass  of  useless  and 
confused  matter,  and  swollen  the  report  to  such  an  extent  that  it  would  never  have  been  cir- 
culated, much  less  read.  I made  a fair  abstract  of  each  case,  and  incorporated  into  the 


7 


report  so  much  as  was  necessary  to  convey  to  the  Senate  and  country  a distinct  idea  of  the 
real  character  and  nature  of  the  transaction.  With  the  same  view  he  refers  to  the  fact  that 
I did  not  set  out  the  whole  volume  of  laws  enacted  by  the  Kansas  legislature,  and  which 
have  been  ordered  to  be  printed  with  the  other  papers  transmitted  to  the  Senate  by  the  Pre- 
sident. These  laws  alone  constitute  a volume  as  large  as  the  one  I hold  in  my  hand,  [hold- 
ing up  a volume  of  the  United  States  Statutes  at  Large,  containing  more  than  a thousand 
pages.]  For  what  purpose  would  he  have  me  incorporate  those  laws  in  the  report?  The 
report  expressly  states  that  the  committee  did  not  deem  it  any  part  of  their  duty  to  examine 
those  laws  in  detail,  for  the  reason  that  they  were  local  statutes,  confined  in  their  operation 
to  the  Territory  of  Kansas,  which  the  legislature  of  the  Territory  might  alter  or  repeal  at 

fleasure.  Of  that  large  volume  of  laws,  affecting  almost  every  relation  and  interest  in  life, 
have  heard  but  two  complained  of  as  being  either  unjust  or  oppressive.  Is  it  not  a curious 
fact  that  none  of  the  disturbances  or  violence  which  have  occurred  in  Kansas  have  arisen 
under  either  of  these  laws — the  election  law  and  the  slavery  law — although  these  are  con- 
stantly referred  to  as  furnishing  excuses  for  resisting  other  laws,  with  which  they  have  no 
connexion?  If  a man  is  arrested  for  murder,  and  is  rescued  from  the  officer  by  an  armed 
mob,  the  excuse  is  that  the  legislature  passed  an  odious  law  upon  the  subject  of  slavery ! If 
a lawless  person  is  arrested  for  burning  his  neighbor’s  house,  and  is  rescued  from  the  officer, 
the  justification  is  found  in  the  fact  that  the  legislature  enacted  an  election  law  which  the 
rioters  did  not  like  ! Whenever  a free-soiler  or  a member  of  the  secret  military  organization 
is  arrested  for  a breach  of  the  peace,  or  for  crime  against  laws  which  are  held  to  be  necessary 
and  proper  in  all  civilized  countries,  and  is  rescued  from  the  officer,  the  excuse  is  that  the 
election  law  and  slavery  law  are  odious  and  oppressive  ! I repeat  the  question,  is  it  not  a 
remarkable  fact,  that  while  these  two  laws  are  made  the  excuse  for  resisting  all  the  laws  in 
the  Territory,  no  case  has  ever  arisen  under  either  of  the  statutes  complained  of — no  man  has 
ever  been  charged  with  a violation  of  either — no  prosecution  has  been  instituted  under  either 
of  them?  The  reason  is,  that  they  are  not.  understood  in  the  Territory  to  bear  the  construc- 
tion which  the  free-soilers  here  desire  to  place  on  them,  in  order  to  render  them  odious,  for 
party  purposes.  The  senator  from  Vermont  complains  that  in  the  majority  report  I have 
inserted  an  extract  from  the  address  of  a law  and  order  convention  held  at  Leavenworth  in 
November  last,  and  composed  of  men  of  all  parties,  “ whigs  and  democrats,  free  State  men, 
and  pro-slavery  men,”  who  were  in  favor  of  suppressing  violence  and  maintaining  the  supre- 
macy of  the  laws.  That  meeting  was  presided  over  by  the  governor,  assisted  oy  a majority 
of  the  judges  of  the  supreme  court  of  the  Territory,  and  the  United  States  district  attorney 
and  marshal  participated  in  the  proceedings.  I thought  it  more  consistent  with  fairness  and 
impartiality  to  give  the  construction  placed  on  those  laws  by  those  whose  duty  it  is  to  expound 
and  execute  them  than  to  adopt  the  construction  which  is  sought  to  be  put  on  them  here  for 
partisan  purposes.  Is  it  not  fair  to  presume  that  the  judges,  governor,  district  attorney,  and 
marshal  will  expound  and  execute  them  in  the  same  sense  in  which  they  explained  them  on 
that  occasion  ? What  is  the  objection  to  having  them  expounded  and  executed  in  that  mode  ? 
None  that  I can  conceive  of,  except  that  it  deprives  the  anti-Nebraska  party  of  the  oppor- 
tunity of  making  political  capital  for  the  presidential  election  ! The  construction  put  on 
those  laws  by  those  whose  official  duty  it  is  to  construe  them  authoritatively,  deprives  them 
of  nearly  all  their  objectionable  features.  Why  not  allow  that  construction  to  prevail,  and 
thus  render  them  harmless,  if  not  useful? 

Mr.  COLLAMER.  I have  given  no  construction  ; I stated  the  laws  themselves. 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  I understand  what  the  senator  has  done.  He  has  stated  a part  of  each 
of  those  laws  and  omitted  the  residue.  He  has  placed  a construction  upon  the  parts  stated 
by  him  directly  the  reverse  of  that  given  by  the  constituted  authorities  of  the  Territory,  and 
by  this  mode  of  reasoning  arrives  at  the  conclusion  that  they  are  intolerably  oppressive  ! If 
his  construction  of  them  makes  them  so  very  objectionable,  why  not  take  the  exposition 
given  by  the  judges  and  governor?  Let  this  be  done,  and  the  people  of  the  Territory  will 
be  relieved  from  all  apprehensions,  if,  indeed,  they  ever  entertained  any,  that  those  laws 
would  be  executed  in  a way  that  would  be  injurious  to  their  interests,  obnoxious  to  their 
feelings,  or  violative  of  their  rights. 

But  I will  not  pursue  that  point  further.  There  is  another  which  I deem  more  important. 

I think  I have  said  enough  to  show  that  this  movement  in  Kansas  is  a revolutionary  pro- 
ceeding to  overthrow  the  territorial  government  in  defiance  of  the  authority  of  Congress. 
The  senator  from  Vermont  has  sought  to  find  precedents  in  the  cases  of  Tennessee,  Arkansas, 
or  some  other  new  State,  under  whose  example  he  hopes  to  shelter  his  free-soil  friends  in 
Kansas.  He  says  that  these  States  and  some  others  formed  their  constitutions  without  the 
previous  assent  of  Congress,  and  were  received  into  the  Union  notwithstanding  that  objection. 
That  is  all  very  true.  But  no  one  of  those  cases  can  be  cited  with  any  propriety  as  a prece- 
dent, justifying  or  palliating  the  revolutionary  proceedings  in  Kansas.  Each  of  those  cases 
is  reviewed  in  the  majority  report,  and  the  facts  clearly  stated,  which  show  that  in  every 
instance  the  proceedings  were  had  in  strict  obedience  and  subordination  to  the  existing  territorial 
government,  and  conditioned  upon  the  decision  of  Congress. 

I wish  to  be  distinctly  understood  upon  this  point.  Tennessee,  Arkansas,  Michigan, 
Florida,  and  California  formed  their  constitutions,  and  took  the  preparatory  steps  to  seek 
admission  into  the  Union,  without  having  first  obtained  the  assent  of  Congress  to  do  so.  Of 


8 


these,  all  but  California  were  duly  organized  under  territorial  governments  established  by 
Congress,  and  California  had  a government  de  facto,  which  was  recognized  by  the  government 
of  the  United  States,  and  administered  under  its  sanction  and  direction.  In  each  of  these 
cases  the  movement  for  a State  government  was  made  under  the  direction  of  the  existing 
territorial  government,  and  in  subordination  to  its  authority.  ■ I repeat,  therefore,  that  there 
is  no  instance  in  the  whole  history  of  our  country  which  can  be  tortured  into  a precedent, 
with  even  the  appearances  of  fairness,  to  justify  the  attempt  in  Kansas  to  set  up  a State 
government  in  conflict  with  the  existing  territorial  government,  and  for  the  purpose  of  over- 
throwing it  in  defiance  of  the  authority  of  Congress.  Herein  consists  a material  and  fatal 
point  of  difference  between  the  Kansas  case  and  each  and  every  other  case  which  has  arisen 
during  the  whole  history  of  this  republic  This  radical  and  fatal  point  of  difference  is  clearly 
and  conclusively  demonstrated  in  the  majority  report,  and  especially  pressed  upon  the  con- 
sideration of  the  Senate,  and  particularly  upon  the  senator  from  Vermont,  in  my  speech  the 
other  day;  in  answer  to  which  he  has  devoted  so  much  of  his  speech  to-day.  Under  these 
circumstances,  is  it  not  remarkable  that  he  should  pass  over  in  silence  this  fatal  point,  both 
in  his  report  and  in  his  speech  ? Did  he  forget  it?  Did  he  overlook  it?  Was  not  his  atten- 
tion especially  called  to  it?  He  cited  these  cases  to  show  that  other  Territories  had  formed 
their  constitutions  without  the  previous  assent  of  Congress — a fact  well  known  to  the  Senate, 
a fact  set  forth  in  detail  in  the  majority  report  and  in  my  speech,  together  with  this  other 
fact,  which  is  so  fatal  to  his  position  that,  in  every  oilier  case,  the  Slate  movement  was  in  subor- 
dination to  the  territorial  authorities.  Why  spend  so  much  time,  and  put  forth  such  great 
efforts,  to  prove  a fact  which  is  conceded,  and  to  conceal  from  view  this  other  fact,  upon 
which  the  whole  argument  rests  ? 

It  is  true  that  the  senator  from  Vermont  quotes  one  paragraph  from  the  opinion  of  Attor- 
ney General  Butler  in  the  Arkansas  case,  to  the  effect  that  the  territorial  legislature  possessed 
no  authority  to  authorize  the  formation  of  a constitution  and  State  government  without  the 
assent  of  Congress;  but  he  might,  and  I think  ought,  in  fairness,  to  have  quoted  another 
paragraph  from  the  same  opinion,  that  the  people  might  proceed,  under  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  peaceably  to  assemble  and  petition  government  for  the  redress  of  grievances, 
and  in  their  petition  might  include  a constitution  for  a State  government,  with  this  important 
proviso,  which  the  senator  did  not  deem  it  material  to  bring  to  the  attention  of  the  Senate, 
but  which  I will  now  read  : 

“ Provided,  always,  That  such  measures  shall  be  commenced  and  prosecuted  in  a peaceable  manner,  in  strict 
subordination  to  the  existing  territorial  government,  and  i'll  entire  subserviency  to  the  power  of  Congress  to 
adopt,  reject,  or  disregard  them  at  their  pleasure." 

Had  the  senator  quoted  this  proviso  in  connexion  with  what  he  did  say  on  this  point’ 
comment  from  me  would  have  been  unnecessary.  These  extracts  clearly  prove,  so  far  as 
the  legal  opinion  of  Benjamin  F.  Butler  can  be  deemed  authority,  that  the  proceedings  in 
Kansas  are  revolutionary,  and,  when  carried  to  the  ultimate  purpose,  will  constitute  an  act 
of  open  and  undisguised  rebellion ! 

I will  now  pass  from  this  point  to  another  of  still  graver  import.  The  senator  from  Ver- 
mont has  repeated,  with  an  air  of  seriousness,  the  old  and  exploded  story  that  “ Kansas  has 
been  conquered  and  a legislature  forced  on  her  by  violence!”  He  fancies  that  he  has  made 
a discovery  ; that  he  has  opened  a new  mine,  rich  with  proofs ; that  Kansas  was  invaded  and 
conquered  by  large  bodies  of  armed  men  from  Missouri.  His  proofs  consist  in  the  fact  that 
Governor  Reeder  caused  a census  to  be  taken  in  February,  1855,  from  which  it  appeared 
that  there  were  a little  more  than  2,900  legal  voters — say  3,000  in  round  numbers — in  the 
whole  Territory,  whereas  the  returns  of  the  election  on  the  30th  of  March  of  the  same  year 
show  that  about  6,200  votes  were  polled.  From  these  facts  he  infers  and  gravely  argues  that 
the  difference  between  3,000  and  6,200  was  the  exact  number  of  illegal  votes  cast  by  persons 
from  Missouri,  who  composed  the  invading  army.  This  is  ingenious  and  plausible  at  first 
view,  but  can  it  be  satisfactory  to  the  mind  of  any  impartial  man  who  has  studied  the  history 
of  that  transaction?  It  is  well  known  that  emigration  to  Kansas  commenced  in  the  summer 
of  1854.  Large  numbers  of  emigrants  from  the  western  States  had  gone  the  year  previous, 
in  anticipation  of  the  organization  of  the  Territory,  but  being  stopped  on  the  border  by  the 
Indian  agents  and  United  States  troops,  whose  duty  it  was  to  obey  the  orders  of  the  proper 
department  in  executing  and  enforcing  the  Indian-intercourse  laws,  which  were  still  in  force 
in  that  Territory,  aud  by  the  terms  of  which  all  emigrants  and  settlers  were  to  be  kept  out  of 
the  country,  these  emigrants  took  up  a temporary  residence  in  the  western  counties  of  Mis- 
souri, waiting  for  the  passage  of  the  Nebraska  bill.  So  soon  as  they  received  the  news  that 
the  country  was  open  to  settlement  they  made  their  arrangements  to  move  across  the  line, 
and  to  make  choice  of  the  best  locations  for  their  future  homes.  In  the  course  of  the  sum- 
mer and  fall  others  followed  from  Iowa,  Illinois,  Indiana,  Kentucky — in  fact,  from  all  the 
northwestern  and  southwestern  States.  The  first  companies  sent  out  by  the  New  England 
Emigrant  Aid  Societies  arrived  in  July  and  August,  and  others  followed  at  short  intervals 
until  winter  set  in.  When  winter  came  upon  this  large  mass  of  men,  and  closed  the  navi- 
gation and  cut  off  their  snpplies,  they  found  themselves  without  adequate  shelter,  and  many 
of  them  without  any  houses  or  shelter  to  protect  them  against  the  severity  of  the  climate, 
and  without  food  or  the  means  of  subsistence  for  themselves  or  their  animals.  They  had 
gone  there  to  become  settlers  and  permanent  inhabitants ; had  selected  and  staked  out  their 


9 


claims ; some  had  erected  shanties  or  cabins  in  which  they  could  stay  until  they  could  build 
hoiises  for  themselves  and  their  families  to  live  in  ; but  scarcely  any  of  them  entered  the 
Territory  early  enough  in  the  season  to  raise  a crop,  while  a vast  majority  came  too  late  to 
make  adequate  arrangements  for  shelter  and  food  during  the  winter.  Under  these  circum- 
stances, a large  majority  of  the  emigrants,  after  selecting  and  marking  their  claims  to  the 
laud  upon  which  they  intended  to  make  their  improvements,  returned  to  their  old  homes, 
where  they  had  left  their  families,  in  Missouri,  Iowa,  Illinois,  Indiana,  Kentucky,  and  other 
western  States,  with  the  view  of  going  back  to  Kansas  in  the  spring  with  their  families. 
These  facts  are  well  known  to  the  senators  from  the  western  States.  I ask  the  senator  from 
Iowa  if  such  was  not  the  course  pursued  by  the  emigrants  from  his  State? 

Mr.  JONES,  of  Iowa.  Certainly,  it  was.  • 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  I might  propound  the  same  inquiry,  and  receive  a like  answer  from 
every  western  senator.  The  tacts  are  well  known  and  notorious  throughout  the  western 
States.  The  emigrants  from  the  eastern  States  and  other  remote  portions  of  the  Union,  who 
could  not  conveniently  return  to  their  old  homes  to  spend  the  winter,  were  under  the  neces- 
sity of  seeking  shelter  and  food  in  the  nearest  settlements  and  border  counties  of  Missouri. 
The  Emigrant  Aid  Societies  of  New  England  expended  large  sums  in  purchasing  hotels  and 
renting  boarding  houses  in  the  border  towns  within  the  State  of  Missouri,  with  the  view  of 
furnishing  accommodations  for  their  people,  whom  they  had  sent  to  Kansas  without  the 
means  of  obtaining  houses  and  food,  and  sustaining  life  during  the  first  winter.  These  things 
all  resulted  from  the  necessity  of  the  case.  The  emigrants  had  arrived  in  the  Territory  too 
late  in  the  season  to  plant  corn,  sow  wheat,  and  raise  a crop.  For  these  reasons  they  could 
not  remain  in  the  Territory  during  that  winter,  and,  consequently,  sought  shelter  and  food 
elsewhere,  with  the  view  of  returning  in  the  spring,  and  becoming  actual  settlers  and  inhabi- 
tants of  the  Territory.  It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  that  when  the  governor  caused  a cen- 
sus to  be  taken  in  mid-winter — in  the  month  of  February — he  found  only  three  thousand  legal 
voters  in  the  whole  Territory.  It  is  more  surprising  that  he  should  have  found  one-half  of 
that  number  ; while,  if  he  had  taken  the  census  three  months  earlier,  or  three  months  later, 
he  would,  in  all  probability,  have  found  three  times  that  number  of  legal  voters — emigrants 
who  had  come  to  Kansas  with  the  view  of  remaining  and  becoming  permanent  inhabitants, 
but  who  had  been  forced  to  leave  in  search  of  food  and  shelter,  and  who  did  return  to  the 
Territory  and  become  actual  settlers  when  the  winter  was  over.  The  misfortune  was  that 
the  governor  should  have  taken  the  census  in  the  middle  of  winter,  when  three-fourths  of  the 
emigrants  were  necessarily  absent,  and  should  have  ordered  the  election,  on  a short  notice, 
to  be  held  on  the  30th  of  March,  before  they  could  all  return.  It  was  also  unfortunate  that 
the  first  notice  which  the  emigrants  in  western  Missouri  received  of  the  time  when  the  elec- 
tion was  to  be  held  came  from  Boston,  through  the  agents  of  the  Emigrant  Aid  Societies. 
This  faet  was  calculated  to  excite  suspicions  that  there  might  be  a secret  understanding 
between  the  governor  and  those  societies,  by  which  unfair  advantages  might  be  obtained  by 
sending  forward  large  bodies  of  emigrants  to  ascend  the  Missouri  river  on  the  first  boats  after 
the  opening  of  navigation,  and  to  arrive  in  Kansas  just  in  time  to  vote  at  the  election  on  the 
30th  of  March.  The  proclamation  was  dated  on  the  8th  of  March,  ordering  the  election  to 
be  held  on  the  30th  of  the  same  month  ; thus  allowing  but  twenty-two  days  for  the  emigrants 
to  return  and  vole.  A portion  of  them  did  return — probably  most  of  those  who  had  spent 
the  winter  in  Missouri  and  Iowa — while  many  who  were  more  remote  from  the  scene  of 
operations  did  not  get  the  notice  in  time  to  make  their  arrangements  and  arrive  in  Kansas 
until  after  the  election.  Hence  it  is  very  probable  that  for  two  or  three  days  previous  to  the 
election,  and  perhaps  on  the  morning  of  that  day,  at  certain  points  along  the  border,  and 
particularly  where  the  ferries  crossed  the  river,  there  may  have  been  witnessed  a scene  bear- 
ing some  resemblance  to  an  invading  army  rushing  into  Kansas  to  vote  ; and  many  of  them 
may  have  returned  the  next  day,  as  has  been  alleged,  to  their  boarding  houses  or  their  former 
homes,  there  to  remain  until  the  spring  was  fairly  opened,  when  they  could  take  their  fami- 
lies with  them  to  the  Territory,  and  improve  their  lands  which  they  had  selected  for  their 
future  homes  the  previous  fall.  But  is  it  fair  to  assume,  without  evidence  and  in  opposition 
to  the  known  facts  of  the'  case,  that  all  these  persons  were  citizens  of  the  State  of  Missouri, 
marching  into  Kansas  to  control  their  elections  by  fraud  and  violence  ? Would  it  not  be  well 
to  ascertain  how  many  of  them  had  been  sent  from  New  England  by  the  Emigrant  Aid  Soci- 
eties the  previous  year?  how  many  were  emigrants  to  Kansas  from  Pennsylvania  and  Ohio 
— from  Indiana,  Kentucky,  and  Tennessee?  I do  not  hesitate  to  venture  the  opinion,  from 
the  facts  which  have  come  to  my  knowledge,  that  it  would  be  found,  on  a thorough  investi- 
gation, that  every  State  in  the  Union  contributed  its  quota  to  make  up  the  bodies  of  men  who 
went  from  Missouri  into  Kansas  to  vote  at  that  election.  There  may  have  been,  and  doubt- 
less were,  seme  persons  among  them  who  were  not  entitled  to  vote,  and  oughffnot  to  have 
been  permitted  to  vote,  at  that  election — persons  who  had  not  previously  been  to  Kansas 
with  the  view  of  becoming  permanent  settlers — but  this  class  of  persons  was  undoubtedly 
small  compared  to  the  whole  number,  and  was  divided  in  a greater  or  less  degree  between  the 
two  contending  parties.  It  was  not  a question  between  free-State  men  and  pro-slavery  men, 
but  between  the  abolitionists  and  free-soilers,  rallying  under  the  banner  of  the  Emigrant  Aid 
Societies  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  advocates  of  non-intervention  and  the  principles  of  self- 
government,  according  to  the  Nebraska  bill,  on  the  other.  On  that  issue  I have  good  autho- 


10 


rity  for  saying  that  a large  majority  of  the  emigrants  from  Illinoiss  and  the  other  northwest- 
ern States,  voted  with  the  pro-slavery  men  in  preference  to  voting  with  the  abolitionists  and 
Emigrant  Aid  party.  They  voted  thus,  not  because  they  were  in  favor  of  making  Kansas  a 
slave  State,  but  for  the  reason  that  they  were  opposed  to  abolitionism  in  all  its  forms  and 
phases,  and  were  determined  that  the  political  destinies  of  Kansas  should  never  be  committed 
to  the  keeping  of  the  Emigrant  Aid  and  abolition  party  by  their  votes.  It  was  in  this  as  is  usually 
the  case  in  all  exciting  struggles,  that  the  most  extreme  and  ultra  men  in  each  party  obtained 
the  control  of  their  respective  parties,  and,  in  the  hour  of  triumph,  the  successful  party 
exercised  its  power  in  a manner  not  entirely  satisfactory  to  those  who  had  turned  the  scale 
and  gave  them  the  victory.  Notwithstanding  their  disapproval  of  some  of  the  acts  of  the 
Kansas  legislature,  the^  same  men,  believing  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  is  the 
supreme  law  of  the  land,  and  should  be  obeyed  as  such,  would  prefer  another  victory  in  the 
hands  of  the  same  party  rather  than  allow  the  abolitionists  and  Emigrant  Aid  Societies  to 
govern  the  Territory.  v 

But  I find  that  I am  digressing  from  the  line  of  my  argument,  and  must  return.  I think  I 
have  adduced  facts  enough  to  satisfy  every  unbiased  mind  that  the  disparity  between  the 
number  of  legal  voters  returned  by  the  census  in  Februarj'  and  the  number  of  votes  polled  on 
the  30th  of  March  does  not  raise  or  authorize  the  slightest  presumption  that  Kansas  was  invaded 
and  conquered  by  citizens  of  Missouri.  There  may  have  been  illegal  votes  cast,  and  probably 
were,  on  both  sides.  In  a few  precincts  or  election  districts  the  number  may  have  been  suffi- 
cient to  have  materially  affected  the  result.  The  governor  decided  such  to  have  been  the 
case  in  seven  of  the  eighteen  districts,  but  not  in  the  other  eleven.  The  senator  from  Ver- 
mont assumes  that  the  majority  report  admits  the  invasion  and  conquest  as  to  the  seven  dis- 
tricts, and  then  argues  that,  inasmuch  as  those  seven  districts  elect  nine  representatives  out 
of  twenty-six  members  of  the  legislature — which,  being  more  than  one-third,  might  sustain 
the  governor  in  the  proper  exercise  of  the  veto  power — this  fact  of  itself  is  sufficient  to  induce 
us  declare  the  whole  void  and  the  acts  of  the  legislature  invalid.  That  senator  labors  under 
several  mistakes  in  making  this  assumption.  In  the  first  place,  we  have  never  admitted,  and 
do  not  believe,  that  the  legal  voters  even  in  those  seven  districts  were  overpowered  and  sub- 
jugated bj'  violence  and  intimidation  as  alleged.  There  were,  doubtless,  irregularities  to  a 
greater  or  less  extent  at  several  of  the  polls,  and,  inasmuch  as  the  governor  adjudged  them 
all  bad,  and  ordered  new  elections  in  those  seven,  while  he  adjudged  the  elections  all  fair  and 
legal  in  the  other  eleven  districts,  I did  not  feel  disposed  to  make  an  issue  with  him  on  a 
point,  which  could  not  chaDge  the  result,  since,  by  the  governor’s  own  decision,  a large 
majority  of  the  members  of  both  houses  of  the  legislature  were  fairly  and  duly  elected.  The 
senator  from  Vermont  labors  under  a mistake,  also,  when  he  supposes  that  the  setting  aside 
the  returns  and  ordering  a new  election  in  those  seven  districts  changed  the  seats  of  nine 
members — being  more  than  one-third  of  the  house.  He  forgets  that,  while  those  seven  dis- 
tricts elected  nine  representatives,  three  of  the  persons  who  were  elected  at  the  first  election, 
on  the  30lh  of  March,  were  re-elected  at  the  second  election,  on  the  24th  of  May,  when  there 
was  no  pretence  of  an  invasion  or  conquest.  Hence,  it  made  no  difference  to  them  which  of 
the  two  elections  was  held  valid,  for  they  had  received  a majority  of  the  votes  at  both,  and 
held  the  governor’s  certificate  under  the  last  election.  Thus  the  number  is  reduced  from 
nine  to  six,  which,  being  less  than  one-fourth  of  the  whole  number,  could  not  affect  the  exer- 
cise of  the  veto  power,  and  renders  the  objection  invalid  on  the  ground  assumed  by  the  sen- 
ator from  Vermont. 

In  view  of  these  facts,  I ask  where  is  the  authority  for  impeaching  the  whole  legislature,  or 
for  questioning  the  validity  of  its  acts?  Where  is  the  authority  for  saying  that  the  people 
were  subjugated  in  most  of  the  districts?  The  senator  from  Vermont  quotes  Governor 
Reeder  to  prove  it.  1 have  quoted  Governor  Reeder  under  oath  to  prove  the  contrary.  I 
have  shown,  by  his  official  acts,  that  he  did  not  believe  a word  of  it  while  he  was  governor. 
He  never  dreamt  that  the  people  of  Kansas  had  been  subdued  and  conquered  until  after  he 
was  turned  out  of  office  for  his  Indian  speculations.  He  recognised  them  as  a legislature 
duly  elected  and  organized,  fully  competent  to  enact  laws  which  would  be  binding  upon  the 
people  of  Kansas.  He  awarded  to  ail  men  the  privilege  of  contesting  the  election  of  each 
member  before  the  certificate  issued.  Contests  were  had  before  him,  and  he  decided  each 
case  upon  the  facts  presented.  He  set  aside  the  returns  in  seven  districts  ; he  confirmed  them 
in  eleven.  Hence  the  presumption  is,  that,  if  there  had  been  frauds  in  the  other  eleven, 
somebody  would  have  come  forward  with  their  complaints.  Inasmuch  as  you  could  not  find 
ten  men  to  sign  a remonstrance,  and  one  man  to  swear  to  it,  in  the  other  election  districts, 
the  fair  resumption  is  that  there  were  no  such  frauds  in  those  districts  as  would  authorize  him 
to  set  them  aside. 

The  senator  from  Vermont  now  says  that  the  reason  why  the  election  was  not  contested 
in  one  of  those  districts  was  because  the  messenger  who  was  sent  with  the  protest  did  not 
reach  the  governor  until  it  was  an  hour  too  late.  I am  much  obliged  to  him  for  that  state- 
ment. He  tells  us  in  the  minority  report  that  they  were  so  intimidated  and  subdued  and 
frightened  by  violence  that  they  dared  not  do  it. 

It  seems  that  they  got  over  their  fright,  and  now  the  author  of  the  minority  report  has  got 
over  his,  so  far  as  to  find  that  they  did  dare  to  protest  and  contest.  They  did  it  in  seven 
districts.  They  tried  to  do  it  in  one  more,  but  were  an  hour  too  late.  Why  did  they  not 


11 


try  in  the  other  ten  districts?  Evidently  for  the  reason  that  there  were  no  facts  upon  which 
they  could  do  it. 

Now,  let  us  look  at  the  evidence.  I called  attention  in  the  majority  report,  and  also  in 
the  remarks  which  I made  the  other  day,  to  the  fact  that  the  legislature,  when  it  assembled 
at  Pawnee,  three  months  after  the  alleged  invasion,  passed  a resolution  authorizing  any  man 
who  chose  to  contest  the  seat  of  any  member  in  either  house.  Men  did  come  forward  to 
contest  the  seats  of  seven  of  the  members  then  present,  but  they  aid  not  contest  the  others. 
Did  they  not  know  at  that  time,  three  months  subsequent  to  the  election,  that  Kansas  had 
been  conquered ? Governor  Reeder  did  not  know  it.  Why?  He  addressed  a message  to 
the  legislature  in  which  he  invoked  the  blessings  of  Heaven  upon  those  very  men  there  as- 
sembled while  engaged  in  the  performance  of  their  high  and  patriotic  duties-!  He  recom- 
mended them  to  pass  laws  on  all  rightful  subjects  of  legislation.  Did  not  the  sis  abolition 
members  who  were  elected  at  the  second  election,  and  who  then  held  seats  in  the  house 
under  the  governor’s  certificate,  know  that  Kansas  had  been  conquered?  Did  not  the  re- 
presentatives from  Lawrence  know  it?  Did  not  the  abolition  representative  elected  at  the 
first  election,  Mr.  Houston,  from  Pawnee,  know  it?  Yet  when  you  look  through  the  re- 
ports, both  of  the  majority  and  minority,  of  the  legislative  commiitee,  you  find  that  in  that 
contest  before  the  legislature  there  was  no  pretence  that  fraud  or  violence  had  been  prac- 
tised outside  of  the  seven  disputed  districts.  Is  it  not  singular  that  it  should  remain  a pro- 
found secret  until  they  determined  to  form  a State  government,  and  overthrow  the  existing 
territorial  government  established  by  Congress? 

Mr.  President,  I have  said  enough  to  bring  back  the  points  to  the  position  in  which  I left 
them  in  my  former  speech.  I am  not  going  to  follow  the  senator  from  Vermont  through  all 
his  criticisms  on  the  majority  report.  They  are  not  of  a character  which  call  for  a reply  at 
this  time,  nor  would  it  be  fair  to  detain  the  Senate  for  that  purpose  at  this  late  hour. 

The  senator  from  Vermont  has  explained  what  he  meant  by  the  word  “experiment”  in 
his  minority  report — the  natural,  and  perhaps  unavoidable,  consequence  of  which  would  be 
violence  and  bloodshed.  He  says  he  alluded ’to  the  experiment  of  the  ^Nebraska  bill,  by 
which  the  question  of  slavery  was,  for  the  first  time  in  our  history,  left  to  the  decision  of  the 
people.  What  is  the  objection  to  leaving  the  decision  of  that,  as  well  as  all  other  local  and 
domestic  questions,  to  the  people  who  are  immediately  interested  in  it  ? 

His  objection  is  that  it  has  a tendency  to  bring  opposing  elements  and  inflammable  ma- 
terials into  collision  from  which  violence  may  be  apprehended.  Does  not  the  same  objection 
apply  to  all  other  questions  which  involve  the  in'erests  and  excite  the  passions  of  men  as  well 
as  the  question  of  slavery  ? Does  it  not  apply  to  the  Maine  liquor  law,  to  railroad  contro- 
versies, to  taxation,  to  schools,  to  the  location  of  county  seats,  to  <?ie  division  of  counties?  in 
short,  does  it  not  apply  to  all  questions  of  legislation  which  affect  the  property  and  enlist  the 
feelings  and  passions  of  the  community?  If  the  objection  be  a valid  one  against  the  Nebraska 
bill  in  respect  to  the  slavery  question,  it  applies  in  a greater  or  less  degree  to  every  other 
subject  of  legislation  in  proportion  as  it  affects  the  interests  and  feelings  of  the  people.  It  is 
an  objection  to  the  fundamental  principles  upon  which  all  free  governments  rest,  and  which, 
when  admitted  to  be  valid,  drives  us  irresistibly  to  despotism.  The  argument  is  that  the 
people  should  not  be  permitted  to  vote  upon  a question  involving  their  social  and  domestic 
system-,  lest  there  might  arise  a diversity  of  opinion  which  might  possibly  degenerate  into 
quarrels  and  controversies,  and  terminate  in  violence!  Hence,  it  would  seem  to  follow,  that 
if  tie  people  were  allowed  any  voice  in  making  their  own  laws  it  should  be  confined  to  those 
insignificant  questions  in  which  they  feel  no  interest,  and  in  regard  to  which  there  could  be 
no  probability  of  a diversity  of  opinion  ! Precious  boon — to  allow  the  people  to  vote  when 
they  fee)  no  interest  in  the  question,  and  deny  them  the  privilege  when  they  do,  for  fear  they 
will  differ  in  opinion  and  become  excited  about  it!  This  is  “ the  experiment” — “ the  vice  of 
a mistaken  law”— to  which  the  senator  from  Vermont  traces  all  the  difficulties  in  Kansas! 
He  seems  to  be  under  the  impression  that  this  “ experiment”  is  now  introduced  into  our  legis- 
lation for  the  first  time  in  respect  to  the  slavery  question  by  the  Nebraska  bill ! He  makes 
the  Nebraska  acta  far  more  important  measure — one  reflecting  infinitely  more  credit  upon  its 
author  than  I ever  claimed  for  it ! I was  under  the  impression  that  the  same  principle,  or 
experiment,  as  he  prefers  to  call  it,  was  involved  and  affirmed  in  the  compromise  measures  of 
1850,  and  incorporated  into  the  platforms  of  the  whig  party  and  of  the  democratic  party  at 
.Baltimore  in  1852,  as  a rule  of  action  by  which  each  party  pledged  itself  to  be  governed  in  all 
future  controversies  upon  the  slavery  question.  Did  not  the  acts  for  the  organization  of  the 
Territories  of  Utah  and  New  Mexico  try  the  same  ‘•'experiment?”  Were  not  those  acts 
based  on  the  same  principle?  Did  not  those  acts  “ leave  the  people  perfectiy  free  to  form 
and  regulate  their  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution  of 
the  LTnited  States,”  with  the  guarantee  that,  when  admitted  into  the  Union,  they  should  be 
received  “ with  or  without  slavery,”  as  their  constitution  should  provide  at  the  time  of  ad- 
mission? Did  violence  and  bloodshed  result  as  the  natural,  and  perhaps  unavoidable,  conse- 
quences of  this  experiment  in  1850?  Have  any  such  consequences  resulted  from  the  same 
experiment  in  Nebraska  in  1854?  If  violence  and  bloodshed  are  the  natural  consequences  of 
such  an  experiment,  why  have  not  the  same  causes  produced  like  effects  elsewhere  as  well  ae 
in  Kansas?  1 would  like  to  have  this  inquiry  answered  hy  the  senator  from  Vermont,  or  by 
the  senator  from  New  York,  (Mr.  Seward,)  who  has  endorsed  his  report  and  pledged  him- 


12 


self  to  make  good  its  positions.  I will  give  them  the  benefit  of  my  answer  now.  There  were  noi 
Emigrant  Aid  Societies  in  1850.  There  were  no  organized  systems  of  foreign  interference  in 
either  of  those  Territories?  The  Emigrant  Aid  Societies  have  not  extended  their  operations  ,i|| 
to  Nebraska!  The  “ experiment”  of  self-government — that  “ vice  of  a mistaken  law” — has  iq 
had  fair  play  in  Nebraska  ; hence  nothing  has  occurred  in  that  Territory  to  disturb  the  peace  ,||i 
and  quiet  of  the  inhabitants.  On  the  contrary,  in  Kansas,  where  there  has  been  organized  g 
foreign  interference — where  the  Emigrant  Aid  Societies  concentrated  all  their  efforts  to  con-  |jf 
trol  the  domestic  institutions  and  local  legislation  of  the  Territory — violence  and  bloodshed  |])i 
have  resulted  as  the  natural  consequence,  not  of  the  “ vice  of  a mistaken  law,”  but  of  their  ji 
experiment  of  foreign  interference  with  the  domestic  concerns  of  a distant  Territory  ! D( 

„But  the  senator  from  Vermont  Iras  made  one  concession  for  which  I return  him  my  ao- 
knowledgments.  He  admits  that,  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  each  State  ha3  j 
a right  to  decide  the  slavery  question  for  itself,  and  that  this  right  could  have  been  exercised  (j 
by  the  people  of  Kansas  when  they  should  form  a constitution,  preparatory  to  their  admis-  s 
sion  into  the  Union,  even  if  the  Nebraska  bill  had  not  repealed  the  Missouri  compromise.  I , 
thank  him  for  this  admission.  I hope  those  with  whom  he  acts  will  endorse  the  proposition.  , 
Then  I would  like  to  have  him  and  them  explain  what  harm  the  repeal  has  done,  and  why  , 
they  desire  to  have  it  restored  ? If  Kansas  could  have  become  a slave  State  before  as  well  as 
now,  what  is  the  use  of  restoring  the  Missouri  compromise? 

Mr.  SEWARD.  The  honorable  senator  will  excuse  me  for  calling  his  attention  to  a mis- 
apprehension under  which  he  labors  with  regard  to  the  remark  of  the  senator  from  Vermont, 
who  is  now  absent,  which  is  the  only  reason  why  I interpose. 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  I yield  the  floor  with  pleasure. 

Mr.  SEW  ARD  I heard  a large  portion  of  the  senator’s  speech,  and  I did  not  understand 
him  to  say  that  a State  would  have  the  right  to  come  into  the  Union  with  or  without  slavery, 
as  her  people  pleased,  if  the  compromise  act  had  not  been  repealed.  I understood  him  to  say 
that,  after  coming  in,  it  would  have  the  right  to  establish  or  prohibit  slavery. 

Mr.  TOOMBS  and  several  other  senators.  No,  no. 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  On  the  contrary,  he  took  the  distinct  ground  that  a State,  when  its 
people  assembled  to  form  a constitution,  preparatory  to  admission,  had  the  right  to  come  in 
with  or  without  slaverv,  even  under  the  Missouri  compromise. 

Mr.  SEW  ARD.  I did  not  hear  that. 

Mr.  DOL  GLAS.  My  colleague  came  to  the  same  conclusion  the  other  day  in  his  speech. 

We  seem  to  be  making  converts  to  the  true  doctrine.  It  is  a sound  constitutional  principle. 

If  we  get  men  to  admit  that  a State  has  the  right  when  she  forms  ner  constitution  either  to 
have  slavery  or  not,  to  adopt  or  reject  it,  as  she  pleases,  it  is  a pretty  good  step  towards  the 
doctrine  of  the  Nebraska  bill.  When  that  admission  is  made,  I want  to  know  what  you  all 
mean  when  you  talk  about  a breach  of  faith  in  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  compromise?  You 
have  all  been  in  the  habit  of  saying  on  the  stump,  and  wherever  else  you  had  the  opportu- 
nity, that  by  the  Nebraska  bill  we  had  broken  a covenant  which  dedicated  Kansas  and  Ne- 
braska to  freedom  “ forever.”  We  are  now  told  that  “ forever”  means  “ hereafter,”  and 
lasts  only  until  there  are  people  enough  to  form  a State,  and  that  no  parliular  number  is 
required  for  that  purpose. 

The  senator  from  Vermont  attempts  to  ridicule  the  Nebraska  bill  because  it  contains  a pro- 
vision declaring  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  to  be  in  force  in  the  Territory.  He 
desires  to  know  who  ever  doubted  that  such  would  be  the  case  without  that  provision?  Who 
was  ever  silly  enough  to  suppose  that  the  constitution  could  be  extended  by  law  over  a Ter- 
ritory which  it  did  not  reach  without  such  law?  I will  answer  his  ques'ion.  I will  tell  him 
the  man.  It  was  no  less  a person  than  Daniel  Webster — New  England ’s  great  statesman, 
whom  she  delighted  to  call  the  great  expounder  of  the  constitution.  Senators  who  were  then 
members  of  this  body  have  not  forgotten,  and  will  not  soon  forget,  the  debate  between  Mr. 
Webster  and  Mr.  Calhoun  upon  this  very  point,  in  which  the  former  contended  that  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  did  not  extend  over  the  Territories  without  an  act  of  Con- 
gress to  that  effect  ; while,  on  the  other  hand,  the  great  Carolinean  insisted  that  the  consti- 
tution was  coextensive  with  the  limits  and  covered  all  the  Territories  pertaining  to  tire 
republic.  Without  endorsing  the  peculiar  opinions  of  Mr.  Webster  on  this  point,  Mr.  Clay 
did  not  hesitate,  in  deference  to  them,  to  adopt,  in  the  Compromise  of  1850,  the  identical 
provision  which  the  senator  from  Vermont  now  attempts  to  ridicule,  under  the  supposition 
that  I introduced  it  into  the  Nebraska  act  for  the  first  time  in  our  legislation.  I copied  the 
provision  from  the  compromise  measures  of  1850  for  the  same  reasons  which  induced  Mr. 
Clay  to  adopt  it,  although'it  is  but  fair  to  say  that  I never  did  concur  in  the  opinion  of  Mr. 
Webster  that  the  constitution  did  not  apply  to  the  Territories  without  an  act  of  Congress 
carrying  it  there. 

Mr.  President,  I have  a few  words  to  say  to  the  senator  from  New  York  [Mr.  Seward]  be- 
fore I close  my  remarks.  On  the  day  I presented  to  the  Senate  the  report  of  the  Committee 
on  Territories,  and  immediately  after  the  minority  report  was  read  at  the  Secretary’s  desk, 
he  rose  and  volunteered  the  pledge  that  he  would  make  good  every  position  affirmed  by  it. 

As  he  has  the  floor  for  the  next  speech  upon  this  question,  he  will  be  expected  to  redeem  this 
pledge,  or  acknowledge  his  inability  to  do  so.  One  of  these  positions  is,  that  the  “ experi- 
ment” of  allowing  the  people  to  settle  the  slavery  question  for  themselves  in  Territories 


13 


preparatory  to  their  admission  into  the  Union  was  introduced  into  our  legislation  for  the  first 
time  in  the  history  of  this  republic  in  the  Kansas-Nebraska  act  ; and  that,  if  violence  re- 
sulted from  this  experiment  as  a natural,  and  perhaps  unavoidable,  consequence,  it  was  the 
“ vice  of  a mistaken  law.”  I call  on  the  senator  from  New  York- to  sustain  the  truth  of  this 
allegation.  I desire  him  to  answer  specifically  whether  the  compromise  measures  of  1850 
did  not  leave  the  people  of  New  Mexico  and  Utah  perfectly  free  to  decide  the  slavery  ques- 
[ tion  for  themselves,  and  guaranty  their  admission  into  the  Union  with  or  without  slavery,  as 
their  constitution  should  provide  at  the  time  of  admission?  I ask  him  if  he  did  not  oppose 
the  bills  fur  the  organization  of  those  Territories  at  that  time,  for  the  reason  that  they  did 
not  contain  the  Wilmot  proviso,  prohibiting  slavery,  and  for  the  reason  that  they  did  contain 
the  guarantee  that  they  should  be  admitted  with  or  without  slavery,  as  they  should  decide  for 
themselves?  When  he  answers  this  question,  I would  like  to  have  him  explain  at  the  same 
time  whether  he  did  not  stand  pledged  jn  1852  to  sustain  the  whig  Baltimore  platform,  and  to 
support  General  Scott,  standing  on  that  platform  11  with  the  resolutions  annexed,”  to  use  his 
emphatic  language  ; and  whether  those  resolutions  did  not  bind  General  Scott,  and  the  party 
supporting  him,  to  carry  out  in  good  faith  the  compromise  measures  of  1850  “ in  substance 
and  in  principle?”  I desire  a direct  answer  on  these  points,  in  order  that  the  Senate  may 
judge  how  far  he  redeems  his  pledge  to  make  good  the  positions  of  the  minority  report'.  I 
would  like  to  have  him  explain  the  difference  between  the  “ experiment”  of  the  compromise 
measures  of  1850  and  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  act  of  1854,  in  allowing  the  people  to  decide 
the  slavery  question  for  themselves,  and  whether  that  principle  in  each  case  was  equally  the 
“ vice  of  a mistaken  law?”  If  he  shall  answer  that  he  did  regard  both  measures  in  the  same 
light,  I should  be  gratified  if  he  will  explain  how  it  was  that  he  united  with  the  whig  party 
in  1852  to  sustain  the  “vice  of  that  mistaken  law,”  and  now  calls  upon  all  the  odds  and  ends, 
fragments  and  portions,  of  parties  and  isms,  to  merge  all  differences  on  other  points,  and 
form  a.  fusion  with  him  on  the  isolated  point  of  eradicating  this  “vice  of  a mistaken  law”  in 
tire  name  of  freedom  and  humanity?  While  he  is  portraying  the  beauties  of  negro  freedom 
and  equality,  and  demonstrating  the  propriety  of  sacrificing  the  political  and  constitutional 
rights  of  20,000,000  of  white  people  for  the  benefit  of  3,000,000  of  negroes,  I would  be  glad 
if  he  would  point  out  the  advantages  which  the  negro  will  derive  from  the  admission  of 
Kansas  with  the  Topeka  constitution.  That  constitution  provides  that  as  long  as  Kansas 
shall  be  a State,  as  long  as  water  runs  and  grass  grows,  no  negro,  free  or  slave,  shall  ever 
live  or  breathe  under  that  constitution. 

Mr.  SEWARD.  Does  the  senator  wish  me  to  answer  now? 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SEWARD.  Then,  my  answer  is,  that,  such  being  the  constitution,  he  is  wrong  in 
his  premises  that  I am  desirous  to  admit  the  State  of  Kansas  for  the  benefit  of  the  negro.  It 
must  be  for  the  benefit  of  the  white  man. 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  Am  I to  understand  the  senator  that  he  has  abandoned  the  cause  of  the 
negro  upon  the  ground  that  his  freedom  and  equality  are  inconsistent  with  the  rights  of  the 
whiteman?  What  has  become  of  his  professions  of  sympathy  for  the  poor  negro?  What 
are  we  to  think  of  the  sincerity  of  his  professions  upon  this  subject  ? 

Mr.  SEWARD  That  is  another  thing. 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  That  is  the  very  thing.  If  all  other  considerations  are  to  be  made  to 
yield  to  the  paramount  object  of  prohibiting  slavery  in  Kansas  upon  the  ground  that  the 
inequality  which  it  imposes  is  unjust  to  the  negro,  will  that  injustice  be  removed  by  adopting 
a constitution  which  in  effect  declares  that  the  negro,  whether  free  or  slave,  shall  never 
tread  the  soil,  nor  drink  the  water,  nor  breathe  the  air  of  Kansas?  The  senator  from  New 
York  admits  that  the  constitution  with  which  he  proposes  by  his  bill  to  admit  Kansas  con- 
tains such  a provision.  Under  the  code  of  laws  enacted  by  the  territorial  legislature  of 
Kansas,  which  the  senator,  in  common  with  his  party,  professes  to  consider  monstrous  and 
barbarous,  a negro  may  go  to  Kansas  and  be  protected  in  all  his  rights,  so  long  as  he  obeys 
the  laws  of  the  land.  In  order  to  get  rid  of  those  laws,  the  senator  from  New  York  proposes 
to  give  effect  to  a constitutional  provision  which  is  designed  to  prevent  the  negro  forever 
from  entering  the  .State ! 

I should  like  to  hear  from  the  senator  from  Massachusetts  on  this  point.  I believe  he  took 
particular  pains  a few  years  ago  to  arraign  the  State  of  Illinois  for  inserting  a similar  clause 
in  her  constitution. 

Mr.  SUMNER.  Never. 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  Well,  perhaps  it  was  his  predecessor,  [Mr.  Winthrop.]  Upon  reflec- 
tion, I think  it  was.  I recollect  that  it  once  became  my  duty  to  vindicate  the  right  of  my 
own  State  to  insert  such  a clause  in  her  constitution  against  the  assaults  of  a Massachusetts 
senator.  Had  the  present  senator  been  here  at  that  time,  and  found  it  necessary  to  have 
spoken  on  the  subject,  is  it  assuming  too  much  to  venture  the  opinion  that  he  would  have 
joined  in  that  condemnation  ? 

Mr.  SUMNER.  I should  condemn  it,  certainly. 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  Then,  will  the  senator  approve  in  the  constitution  of  Kansas  what  he 
condemns  in  the  constitution  of  Illinois?  I would  like  to  hear  the  senator’s  response  to  this 
inquiry.  If  such  a provision  was  wrong  in  Illinois,  is  it  right  in  Kansas?  Had  not  the  demo- 
cratic State  of  Illinois  as  good  a right  to  adopt  such  a provision  as  the  free-soil  party  of 


14 


Kansas?  Will  the  senator  from  Massachusetts  vote  for  the  bill  introduced  by  the  senator 
from  New  York  to  admit  Kansas,  at  a time  when  she  has  not  one-third  of  the  requisite  popu- 
lation, with  such  a constitution? 

I do  not  wish  to  be  misunderstood  on  this  point.  I object  to  the  admission  of  Kansas  at 
this  time,  and  under  existing  circumstances,  on  entirely  different  grounds.  I affirm  the  right 
of  Illinois  to  put  such  a clause  in  her  constitution.  The  people  of  Illinois  had  a right  to  do 
as  they  pleased  on  that  subject.  We  tried  slavery  while  a Territory,  notwithstanding  the 
ordinance  of  1787,  until  we  found  that  in  our  climate  and  with  our  productions  it  was  not 
good  tor  us  to  retain  it,  and  for  that  reason  we  abolished  and  prohibited  it.  When  we  de- 
cided that  Illinois  should  be  a free  State  we  also  determined  that  it  should  be  a white  State. 
We  did  not  believe  in  the  equality  of  the  negro  with  the  white  man,  and  hence  were  opposed 
to  a mixture  of  the  races.  The  constitution  of  Illinois  was  made  by  white  men  for  the 
benefit  of  white  men.  The  same  principle  of  State  rights  and  State  equality  which  author- 
ized Illinois  to  abolish  slavery  secured  to  each  other  State  the  privilege  of  retaining  it  if  it 
chose.  The  same  principle  which  authorized  Illinois  to  exclude  the  free  negro  allows  each 
other  State  to  receive  him  if  agreeable  to  her  tastes  and  consistent  with  her  interests.  We 
are  perfectly  content  with  the  practical  operation  of  this  great  principle,  which  teaches  the 
people  of  each  separate  community  to  mind  their  own  business,  and  accord  the  same  right  to 
their  neighbors.  Hence  I should  have  no  controversy  with  the  senator  from  New  York,  or 
his  political  associates,  in  regard  to  this  particular  clause  in  the  Kansas  constitution,  did  they 
not  claim  the  right,  and  insist  that  it  is  their  duty,  to  examine  the  provisions  of  the  constitu- 
tion of  each  State  applying  for  admission,  and  then  either  to  admit  or  reject  the  application, 
according  as  they  may  approve  or  disapprove  the  constitution.  It  is  on  this  ground  that  they 
claim  the  right  to  inquire  whether  the  constitution  prohibits  or  protects  slavery,  and  to  vote  for 
a free  State  and  against  a slave  State.  It  was  on  this  ground  that  the  northern  States  voted 
against  the  admission  of  Missouri  in  1821 — one  year  after  the  adoption  of  the  Missouri  Com- 
promise— because  the  constitution  had  a similar  provision  against  free  negroes  to  the  one 
in  the  Kansas  constitution.  Hence  I desire  to  learn  from  the  senator  from  New  York 
whether  he  and  his  sympathizing  associates  do  really  approve  of  a constitutional  provision 
which  shall  deny  to  the  negro  forever,  not  merely  the  right  to  enjoy  the  same  liberty  accorded 
to  the  white  man,  but  also  the  right  to  live  and  breathe  within  the  limits  of  the  proposed  State 
of  Kansas  ? 

Mr.  SEWARD.  Will  the  honorable  senator  allow  me  to  answer  now? 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SEWARD.  I need  scarcely  inform  the  honorable  senator  that  I do  not  approve  of 
any  such  provision  In  any  constitution  in  the  world.  I never  did,  and  I never  shall,  vote  to 
approve  or  sanction  in  any  constitution,  or  in  any  law,  a provision  which  tends  to  keep  any 
man  being,  any  member  of  the  human  family  to  which  I belong,  in  a condition  of  degrada- 
tion below  the  position  which  I occupy  myself  except  for  his  own  fault  or  crime. 

Mr.  DOUGLAS  The  senator  does  not  approve  of  this  provision,  and  never  can,  for  the 
reason  that  it  does  not  put  the  negro  on  an  equality  with  himself!  Then,  will  he  vote  for 
admitting  Kansas  in  this  irregular  manner,  and  without  the  requisite  population,  merely 
because  her  constitution  has  a provision  which  keeps  slaves  from  going  into  the  Territory, 
together  with  another  clause  “ which  tends  to  keep  a man  beinga  member  of  the  human  family 
to  which  he  belongs — in  a condition  of  degradation  below  the  position  which  he  occupies 
himself?”  Yet,  if  he  votes  for  his  own  bill  to  admit  Kansas  with  the  Topeka  constitution, 
according  to  his  own  doctrine  he  does  vote  to  saction  a provision  to  keep  the  negro  out  alto- 
gether; he  will  not  allow  a negro  to  come  in  a condition  either  below  him  or  above  him! 

Mr.  SEWARD.  You  can  take  it  either  way — above  or  below. 

Mr.  I\OUGLAS.  Yes  ; he  will  exclude  the  negro  absolutely  if  he  is  below  or  above  him! 
He  will  insist  upon  having  the  negro  upon  a footing  of  entire  and  perfect  equality  with  him- 
self. Yet,  if  his  bill  passes,  and  Kansas  is  admitted  with  the  constitution  which  has  been 
formed  and  presented  here,  all  negroes,  both  free  and  slave,  are  forever  prohibited  from  en- 
tering the  State  of  Kansas  by  the  terms  of  the  instrument.  He  cannot  escape  the  responsi- 
bility of  this  result  on  the  plea  that  he  does  not  vote  directly  to  endorse  and  sanction  the  con- 
stitution in  all  its  parts  ; for  his  doctrine,  and  the  doctrine  of  his  party,  is  that  they  not  only 
have  the  right,  but  that  it  is  their  duty,  to  examine  the  constitution  in  all  its  parts,  and  vote 
for  it  or  against  it,  according  as  they  approve  or  disapprove  of  its  provisions,  and  especially 
those  provisions  which  degrade  the  negro  below  the  level  of  the  white  man.  He  must  aban- 
don all  the  principles  to  which  his  life  has  been  devoted  ; he  must  abandon  the  creed  of  the 
party  of  which  he  is  the  acknowledged  leader  before  he  can  vote  for  his  own  bill.  The  black 
republican  party  was  organized  and  founded  on  the  fundamental  principle  of  perfect  and 
entire  equality  of  rights  and  privileges  between  the  negro  and  the  white  man — an  equality 
secured  and  guaranteed  by  a law  higher  than  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  In  your 
creed,  as  proclaimed  to  the  world,  you  stand  pledged  against  “the  admission  of  any  more 
slave  States 

To  repeal  the  fugitive  slave  law  ; 

To  abolish  the  slave  trade  between  the  States  ; 

To  prohibit  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia  ; 

To  restore  the  prohibition  on  Kansas  and  Nebraska  ; and 


15 


To  acquire  no  more  territory  unless  slavery  shall  bo  first  prohibited. 

This  is  your  creed,  authoritatively  proclaimed.  I trust  there  is  to  be  no  evading  or  dodging 
the  issue — no  lowering  of  the  flag.  Let  each  party  stand  by  its  principles  and  the  issues  as 
you  have  presented  them  and  we  have  accepted  them.  Let  us  have  a fair,  bold  fight  before 
the  people,  and  then  let  the  verdict  be  pronounced. 

Mr.  SEWARD.  You  will  have  it. 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  I rejoice  in  this  assurance.  I trust  the  senator  will  be  able  to  bring  his 
troops  up  to  the  line,  and  to  hold  them  there.  I trust  there  is  to  be  no  lowering  of  the. flag — 
no  abandonment  or  change  of  the  issues.  There  are  rumors  afloat  that  you  are  about  to 
strike  your  colors  ; that  you  propose  to  surrender  each  one  of  these  issues,  not  because  you  do 
not  profess  to  be  right,  but  because  you  cannot  succeed  in  the  right;  thatyou  propose  to  throw 
overboard  all  the  bold  men  who  distinguished  themselves  in  your  service  in  fighting  the  anti- 
Nebraska  fight,  and  to  take  a new  m^(),  who,  in  consequence  of  not  being  committed  to  either 
side,  will  be  enabled  to  cheat  somebody  by  getting  votes  from  both  sides  ! Rumor  says  that 
all  your  veteran  generals  who  have  received  scars  and  wounds  in  the  anti-Nebraska  campaign 
are  now  considered  unfit  to  command,  and  are  to  be  laid  aside  in  order  to  take  up  some  new 
man  who  has  not  antagonized  with  the  great  principles  of  self-government  and  State  equality. 
Rumors  says  that,  in  pursuance  of  this  line  of  policy,  you  dare  not  allow  your  committees  in 
the  House  of  Representatives  to  bring  in  bills  to  redeem  your  pledges  and  carry  out  your 
principles  ; that  there  is  to  be  no  bill  passed  in  your  fusion  House  to  repeal  the  Kansas-Ne- 
braska  act — none  to  repeal  the  fugitive-slave  law — none  to  abolish  the  slave  trade  between 
the  States — none  to  abolish  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia — none  to  redeem  any  one  of 
your  pledges,  or  carry  out  any  one  of  your  principles,  upon  which  you  secured  a majority  in 
the  House  by  a fusion  with  northern  know-nothingism.  Rumor  says  that  your  committees 
were  arranged  with  the  view  of  keeping  all  these  questions  in  the  back  ground  until  after  the 
presidential  election,  in  order  that  the  agitation  may  be  reopened  with  better  prospects  of 
success  when  power  shall  have  been  obtained  under  the  auspices  of  a new  man,  who  has  not 
been  crippled  in  the  great  battle.  Would  it  not  be  a curious  spectacle  to  see  this  great  anti- 
Nebraska  or  black  republican  party — which,  less  than  eighteen  months  ago,  proclaimed  a war 
of  extermination,  in  which  no  quarter  was  to  be  granted  or  received,  and  no  prisoners  to  be 
taken — skirmishing  to  avoid  a pitched  battle,  and  get  an  opportunity  to  retreat  from  the  face 
of  those  whom  they  determined  to  hang  and  burn  and  torture  with  all  the  refine  ents  of 
cruelty  which  their  vengeance  could  devise?  Are  the  offices  and  patronage  of  government 
so  much  more  important  to  you  than  your  principles  that  you  feel  it  your  duty  to  sacrifice 
your  creed,  and  the  men  identified  with  it,  in  order  to  get  power?  Are  you  prepared  to 
ignore  the  material  points  in  issue  for  fear  that  they  will  compromit  you  in  the  presidential 
election  ? 

Mr.  WADE.  We  will  whip  you  then. 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  That  remains  to  be  seen.  We  are  prepared  to  give  you  a fair  fight  on 
the  issues  you  have  tendered  and  we  accented.  Let  the  presidential  contest  be  one  of  prin- 
ciple alone  ; let  the  principles  involved  be  distinctly  stated  and  boldly  met,  without  any 
attempts  at  concealment  or  equivocation  ; let  the  result  be  a verdict  of  approval  or  disap- 
proval so  emphatic  that  it  connot  be  misunderstood.  One  year  ago  you  promised  us  a fair 
fight  in  the  open  field  upon  the  principles  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  act ! You  then  unfurled  your 
banner  and  bore  it  aloft  in  the  hands  of  your  own  favorite  and  tried  leaders,  with  your  princi- 
ples emblazoned  upon  it?  Are  you  now  preparing  to  lower  your  flag — to  throw  overboard 
all  your  tried  men  who  have  rendered  service  in  your  cause — and  issue  a search  warrant  in 
hopes  of  finding  a new  man,  who  has  not  antagonized  with  anybody,  and  whose  principles  are 
unknown,  for  the  purpose  of  cheating  somebody  by  getting  votes  from  all  sorts  of  men?  Let 
us  have  an  open  and  a fair  fight.  [Applause  in  the  galleries.] 

The  CHAIR.  The  galleries  will  be  cleared  if  these  demonstrations  are  renewed. 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  I will  not  pursue  the  subject  further. 


t.  r 


■4  : 


•-••'■•to  ..  rioli  ■ -‘ti  ■i-'i'ta  «.>r 

• i < • • 'tKidhu:  , ; 3ft rp 

•i  •'•••  • 11  •<’  V .(•  "i  On  -•jisteni  ;njj 

' : •;)  i j ; ■ M , 

, 

\ i . . • . 


i 


' W.  *JliJ  ,•>  ij.) ■i'J 

■ ■ ■ • !il  : I 

I « ; .1 ( ; x-1  ■;!  . , ■,"  . / >,  *'i  jS» 
!■■■  >'  . ..  lit  : . r<!  f 1 , ; 

•iHii  «hw  • 'f -r  io.J  ;»it|  » bv  V ■ ... 

..i 

■ < •••  ! ,ji  !•  : ■ ,m  ■ i . .•» ...  fa 

■Vi  i . orfw  rillin'  / "1(1  'iy  t|i, 

• 

. .lit  .*.'■»  iMJvlffniibf:  iou'ftjib  •«,•*  , 

... 

. 

11  • ■ ' ■■  ' . n -i  ' * ’ 1 j - lie; 

. ' 1 ij.ii  . -u.  ; 

if!  I '!"■.  ; (*  fkilmlq  0)  '..IK- H - - j!  « t.,{. 

■ 

■ V>  ' >-i  ■■■  ti.'iv  i'i i . 1 oap.  . ‘ ; 

■ ■ 'i  l t ■ 

, , 

■ •>  ■■  ■ v 1 ! : -1  ■ IJ  . ;,.I  -.y  * 

■ ■''  .'*>//  .olMiiil  JeOYg  iniJ  m i •--» 

' ' ■ ' ■ ■ : ■!  HH't'.hl,  ■.'.  I ji’ll.t'i  l.i 

' 

'■  ' ’ ' -‘r  ( i:  'i-it,,;  r;.!iiu/i  I '.i :!  .11  i:.  . .in) 

1 1 ■ it'll  ■ : ■ .i  ,,t  [.ijtfintoJ  •!<  , 1 ...  ■ i ,7  ...h  i;  ).| 

..  ■'  '■  ■ ' ;■••  - ..i  ■■!  rr.ii.- : I ill  | -• 

''  ■ ' :i.‘  .--I  j Ilf,,  ._  ill,  1.  irO'{  oJ  ,f  i 1 Jt  j • • i r.,'KU  liiim;  <•-. 

■ ‘ 'u  :.  ■>.:  n-i:  ; . , , ,. 

1 1 ' ' • 9 i i[  1 1:  i ; i ■ , i. 

'i-  'ij  ■ ..  . 

; Ijiuw  :.Yf  7/  , li.-' 

.li 

‘■■■i'i  iiOi-ji)::'.'  ■■  /.'■;(  n.  ..  hi- i 
' ' ''  -;i  rai  ?;  , i ■.■';  ; .■  ; . '■■  : . 

•"  > • -i  i .'.-ejiiij ; -,-Mi  ' .'j: 

V '■■  V !■:  r";  ; ■ • fth  ;; 

1 . ■•  iir* . v-  . ■ Ji  • - ' ...4} 

•■’  ><  -fi  ■ ■ ' i ■:  0 ,'£/{  Oli  .,■  Ill  ! ■ •(■|»  *111,1  ;1.S 

■■■•'  ■ -i  a:  ! oil  . 1 (tirni  y-.-jj : Kyii'  l! 

■ : M ‘i  ■ - ■'  ilii  •M':  1.;  . f, 


■■y.'  I 


• '•-•ill'  v.:.l''i'<  hr. 

■ 1 


■ — • ’ " ■ » • . • • J 1 ' • . • xi  ' « 

1 ■ ■ i 1 |'!  r.  ■•■  ;r. u . wni  .... 

■ ■ t«q  >1  : h.  ,«/. . ' i.; 1 ,1  x ■;  ..■■: 


1 


'V 

o 


. • 


SPEECHES 


ON  THE  OCCASION  OF  HIS 


PUBLIC  RECEPTIONS 

£ 

BY  THE  CITIZENS  OF 

NEW  ORLEANS,  PHILADELPHIA,  AND 
BALTIMORE. 


WASHINGTON: 

PRINTED  BT  LEMUEL  TOWERS. 

1859. 


6 


X 


SPEECH 


OF 

SENATOR  S.  A.  DOUGLAS 

AT  THE  MEETING 

IF  ODD-FELLOWS’  HALL,  FEW  ORLEAFS, 

ON 

MONDAY  EVENING,  DECEMBER  6,  1858. 


Mr.  President  and  Citizens  of  New  Orleans:  It  was  with  much  hesitation 
and  no  small  degree  of  reluctance  that  I was  induced  to  give  my  consent  to  ad- 
dress you  on  this  occasion.  I have  just  passed  through  a fierce  conflict  in  my 
own  State,  which  required  me  to  perform  more  speaking  than  was  either  agree- 
able to  my  wishes,  or  consistent  with  my  strength.  When  I determined  to 
visit  New  Orleans,  it  was  only  on  private  business  of  an  imperative  character; 
and  it  was  my  desire  to  arrive  and  depart  as  quietly  as  possible,  and  without, 
in  any  way,  connecting  myself  with  politics.  1 approached  your  city-,  as  I sup- 
posed, unheralded  and  unknown,  and  I was  amazed  at  the  magnificent  recep- 
tion extended  to  me  on  the  levee,  by  so  vast  a concourse  of  people,  embracing 
the  municipal  authorities,  the  citizens  in  their  individual  capacity,  my  own 
political  friends,  and  men  of  all  political  parties.  This  was  a compliment  which 
filled  my  heart  with  gratitude,  and  did  not  leave  me  at  liberty  to  decline  the 
first  request  you  might  make  of  me  in  return.  I have,  therefore,  yielded  to 
your  solicitations,  to  make  a few  remarks  on  the  political  topics  which  now 
agitate  the  public  mind  throughout  the  length  and  breadth  of  our  glorious  Re- 
public, and  I have  done  so  the  more  readily  as  I desire  to  know  whether  the  prin- 
ciples, which  are  admitted  to  be  sound  and  orthodox  in  the  free  States,  can  pass 
current  in  the  slave  States. 

So  long  as  we  live  under  a common  Constitution,  binding  on  the  people  of 
all  the  States,  any  political  creed  which  can  not  be  proclaimed  in  Louisiana  as 
boldly  as  in  Illinois,  must  be  unsound  and  unsafe.  1 shall  not  attempt  to  enter 
upon  any  new  views,  or  propound  any  original  ideas  with  the  view  of  testing 
the  truth  of  this  proposition,  but  shall  simply  discuss  these  questions  now  at  issue 
in  the  country,  in  the  same  manner  that  1 am  in  the  habit  of  doiDg  before  an  Illi- 
nois audience.  The  tendency  of  events  during  the  past  fifteen  years,  has  been 
to  force  the  organization  of  political  parties  on  a geographical  basis,  to  array 
the  North  against  the  South,  embittering  the  one  against  the  other,  under 
the  misapprehension  that  there  is  some  irreconcilable  antagonism  in  their 
interests  which  prevents  harmony  between  them!  For  the  last  twenty -five  years 
I have  been  in  public  life;  fifteen  years  have  been  spent  in  the  Congress  of 
the  United  States,  and  the  whole  of  my  life  has  been  devoted  to  the  discovery 
and  elucidation  of  some  common  ground  on  which  Northern  and  Southern  men 
might  stand  on  terms  of  equality  and  justice.  If  you  will  take  pains  t®  examine 
the  history  of  this  sectional  strife  which  has  grown  up  in  our  midst,  you  will 
find  that  the  whole  contest  has  arisen  from  an  attempt  on  the  part  of  the  Fede- 
ral Government  to  assume,  or  usurp,  the  exercise  of  powers  not  conferred  by 
the  federal  constitution.  When  this  Government  was  formed,  the  confederacy 
consisted  of  thirteen  States,  twelve  of  which  were  slaveholding  States, 


4 


■while  one  was  what  is  called  a free  State.  Suppose  the  doctrine  had 
then  prevailed  which  was  proclaimed  by  my  opponent,  Mr.  Lincoln,  in  Illi- 
nois, by  Mr.  Seward,  in  New  York,  and  by  the  leaders  of  the  Abolition 
or  Black  Republican  party  throughout  the  North — the  doctrine  that  uni- 
formity in  the  domestic  institutions  of  the  several  States  is  necessary,  that  a 
house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand  ; that  this  Government,  divided  into 
free  and  slave  States,  cannot  endure  ; that  it  must  become  all  free  or  all  slave ; 
that  it  must  be  all  the  one  thing  or  the  other — and  what  do  you  think  would 
have  been  the  result?  Suppose  that  Mr.  Seward  himself  had  been  a member  of 
the  Convention  which  framed  the  Constitution,  and  when  the  members  came  to 
affix  their  signatures  to  that  instrument,  this  doctrine  of  uniformity  had  been 
proclaimed,  declaring  that  the  domestic  institutions  of  the-several  States  must 
be  the  same,  aud  what  would  have  been  the  effect?  Would  the  oue  free  State 
have  outvoted  the  twelve  slave  States?  On  the  contrary  would  not  the  twelve 
slave  States  have  outvoted  the  one  free  State,  and  thus  slavery  have  been  es- 
tablished in  all  the  States  forever  by  an  irrevocable  provision  of  the  Constitu- 
tion? 

Why  was  this  not  done?  Simply  because  the  sages  who  formed  our  Govern- 
ment had  more  at  heart  the  great  principles  of  civil  liberty  than  the  desire  of 
sectional  power  or  sectional  advantage — b'ecause  they  wished  to  establish  the 
principle  that  each  State  should  possess  .the  sovereign  power  of  legislation  over 
its  own  domestic  institutions — to  form  them  aud  modify  them  to  sun,  itself,  re- 
taining slavery  as  long  as  it  might  desire  to  retain  it,  and  abolishing  it  when- 
ever it  chose.  This  Government  was  formed  on  the  principle  of  State- Rights 
and  State  Sovereignty,  It  is  a confederacy  of  sovereign  and  independent  States, 
having  a certain  common  purpose,  each  retaining  the  right  to  manage  its  own 
affairs,  and  to  maintain  its  own  liberties  inside  of  its  own  jurisdiction. 

It  is  a fatal  heresy  to  proclaim  the  doctrine  that  there  ought  to  be  or  can 
be  unifoimity  among  the  different  States  of  this  Gnion,  as  to  their  local  and 
domestic  institutions.  Uniformity  is  neither  possible  nor  desirable.  Our 
fathers  knew,  when  they  made  this  Government  for  so  many  different  commu- 
nities, that  there  must  necessarily  be  a corresponding  variety  in  the  laws  and 
domestic  institutions  adapted  to  the  wants  and  characteristics  of  each  separate 
locality.  They  knew  that  variety  and  dissimilarity  of  local  and  domestic  insti- 
tutions was  an  essential  element  in  a confederated  form  of  Government.  On 
this  point  you  find  a vast  difference  between  the  Abolition  or  Black  Republican 
party,  on  the  one  hand.  and  the  Democratic  party  on  the  other. 

Heretofore  the  effort  has  been  made,  principally  in  the  North,  to  array  the 
North  against  the  South  and  tire  South  against  the  North,  embittering  them 
against  each  other,  until  no  Southern  man  would  vote  for  a northern  candidate, 
and  no  northern  man  would  trust  a southern  candidate,  and  now  the  Black  Re- 
publican party  is  attempting  to  effect  this  result  by  declaring  the  doctrine  that 
the  Union  cannot  continue  to  exist  half  slave  and  half  free,  and  that  it  must 
become  all  one  thing  or  all  the  other.  I can  well  understand  how  unscrupulous 
politicians  in  the  North,  who  prefer  their  own  aggrandizement  to  the  peace  of 
the  country  and  the  perpetuity  of  the  Union  can  advocate  this  doctrine.  They 
belong  to  the  stronger  section,  and  think  that  they  will  be  able  to  overwhelm 
the  weaker.  But  how  long  has  it  been  since  these  men  in  the  North  raised 
this  clamor?  Did  we  of  the  North,  whilst  you  were  in  the  majority  a;>d  we  in 
the  minority,  declare  that  the  Uuion  could  not  continue  to  exist  divided  into 
free  and  slave  States?  No!  So  long  as  the  tree  States  were  the  minority  section, 
the  North  adhered  to  the  doctrine  that  each  State  should  manage  its  own  domes- 
tic affairs  without  interference  from  the  other  States  or  from  the  Federal  Gov- 
ernment.; but  when,  in  the  progress  of  events  the  free  States  increased  until  they 
obtained  the  majority  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  then  a tie  in  the 
Senate,  ambitious  men  in  the  North  found  that  by  organizing  sectional  parties, 
belonging  as  they  did  to  the  strongest  section,  they  could  ride  into  power  The 
Black  Republican  or  Abolition  party  is  sectional  in  its  organization,  in  its  prin- 
ciples and  in  its  whole  line  of  policy.  Every  argument  used  by  it  is  addressed 
to  Northern  ambition,  and  is  directed  against  the  southern  people  and  southern 
institutions,  and  it  naturally  has  a baneful  influence  on  some  of  the  southern 


5 


people,  inducing  them  to  try  to  form  a southern  party  in  opposition  to  it.  Thus 
you  see  the  result  of  the  attempts  made  to  introduce  the  test,  not  'whether  a 
representative  is  faithful  to  his  own  State  and  to  the  federal  compact,  but 
whether  he  is  true  to  the  North  or  faithful  to  the  South. 

Let  me  remind  you  that  the  Constitution  recognizes  no  such  divisions.  It 
recognizes  no  North  and  no  South,  but  one  Republic  under  one  Constitution, 
and  thirty-two  independent  States,  bound  together  by  one  federal  compact. 
Hence  I say  to  you  that  I owe  no  allegiance  either  to  the  North  or  to  the  South. 
My  allegiance  is  to  my  own  State,  and  through  that  State,  to  the  Federal  Gov- 
ernment— and  to  no  other  power  on  earth,  Let  this  principle  be  observed  and 
acted  upon  in  good  faith,  and  there  will  always  be  peace  between  the  North 
and  the  South,  and  between  all  the  States  of  this  glorious  confederacy.  When 
I addressed  this  argument  to  Northern  men — and  especially  to  large  crowds  of 
Abolitionists,  as  I have  often  done — I have  been  answered  that  slavery  is  so 
great  and  monstrous  an  evil,  that  their  consciences  will  not  permit  them  to  be 
quiet  in  regard  to  it  even  after  they  have  performed  their  whole  duty  in  their 
own  State.  They  bring  forward  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  and  read 
from  it  with  wonderful  satisfaction.  I can  give  you  their  dogmas,  as  presented  in 
every  Abolition  Catechism.  They  take  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  as  I 
have  sa*d,  and  read  this  passage,  We  hold  these  truths  to  be  self-evident,  that 
all  men  are  created  equal,  and  endowed  by  their  Creator  with  certain  inaliena- 
ble rights,  among  which  are  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness.”  Then 
they  stop  and  say,  “ doesn’t  that  Declaration  tell  us  that  all  men  are  created 
equal?  Is  not  a negro  a man,  and  is  he  not,  therefore,  the  equal  of  the  white 
man?  Was  he  not  made  equal  by  his  Creator,  and  is  his  equality  not,  there- 
fore, inalienable  by  Divine  law?  Then  how  can  you  reduce  him  to  an  inferior 
position  by  any  human  law?” 

By  this  specious,  but  sophistical  argument,  they  have  succeeded  in  imposing 
on  some  weak-minded  men,  and  some  old  women  and  children,  until  they  have 
educated  a generation  who  really  believe  that  the  negro  is  their  brother.  And 
I must  be  permitted  to  tell  you  that  many,  even  of  your  southern  men,  have 
quailed  under  that  argument,  and  failed  to  meet  it.  My  answer  is  this:  When 
the  framers  of  the  Declaration  declared  that  all  men  were  equal,  they  had  no 
reference  whatever  to  the  negro.  They  were  speaking  of  white  men — men  of 
European  birth  and  European  descent,  and  had  no  reference  to  the  negro  or  to 
any  other  inferior  and  dependent  race.  And  now  for  the  proof,  as  I have  here- 
tofore submitted  it  at  home.  When  the  Declaration  was  made,  the  colonies 
were  all  slave-holding.  Every  man  that  signed  the  Declaration  represented  a 
slave-holding  constituenev.  Bearing  these  facts  in  mind,  tell  me  if  you  believe 
that  those  men  were  such  hypocrites  as  to  admit  the  negroes  belonging  to  them 
to  be  their  equals  by  divine  right,  and  yet  hold  those  negroes  in  slavery  the 
balance  of  their  lives.  Any  man  who  asserts  that  the  signers  of  the  Declaration 
had  reference  to  negroes  in  that  document,  declares  every  signer  to  have  been 
a hypocrite,  and  worse  than  a hypocrite. 

I repeat,  that  this  Government  was  made  by  white  men,  for  the  benefit  of 
white  men  and  their  posterity  forever,  to  be  administered  by  white  men,  and 
none  others. 

- It  is  a law  of  humanity,  a law  of  civilization,  that  whenever  a man,  or  a 
race  of  men,  show  themselves  incapable  of  managing  their  own  alfairs,  they 
must  consent  to  be  governed  by  those  who  are  capable  of  performing  the  duty. 
It  is  on  this  principle  that  you  establish  those  institutions  of  charity,  for  the 
support  of  the  blind,  or  the  deaf  and  dumb,  or  the  insane.  In  accordance  with 
this  principle  I assert  that  the  negro  race,  under  all  circumstances,  at  all  times 
and  in  all  countries,  has  shown  itself  incapable  of  self-government. 

From  these  considerations,  I arrive  at  the  conclusion  that  the  negro  race  being 
inferior,  does  not  form  any  component  element  in  the  governing  power  of  the 
American  system  of  government.  Yet,  the  negro  is  a human  being,  and  as 
such  is  entitled  to  all,  the  privileges  and  immunities  which  can  be  extended  to 
him  consistent  with  the  safety  of  the  society  in  which  he  lives.  I presume 
that  all  men,  North  and  South,  of  whatever  politics,  religion,  or  prejudices, 
will  assent  to  the  principle  that  humanity  compels  us  to  extend  to  the  negro, 


6 


and  all  other  dependent  races,  all  the  privileges  and  immunities  consistent  with 
the  good  of  the  society  in  which  they  reside.  Perhaps  you  will  ask  me,  as  the 
Abolitionists  have  asked  me,  what  are  these  privileges  and  immunities — what 
their  nature  and  extent?  I return  the  same  answer  I have  so  often  given  them. 
It  is  a question  for  each  State  to  decide  for  itself,  independent  of  any  other 
State  or  of  the  Federal  Government.  Illinois  has  decided  the  question  for  her- 
self. We  have  adopted  a line  of  policy  which  has  given  satisfaction  to  us.  If 
you  do  not  like  it,  though  we  may  regret  your  dislike,  we  must  be  permitted 
to  say,  with  entire  respect,  that  it  is  none  of  your  business.  If  you  do  not  like 
our  laws  on  the  subject  of  negro  slavery,  or  any  other  domestic  concern,  stay  at 
home  and  live  under  such  laws  as  you  choose  to  make.  The  law  in  our  State 
now  is,  that  a negro  shall  not  be  a citizen,  nor  shall  he  be  a slave  ; but  during 
our  territorial  existence,  when  the  settlers  were  mainly  from  slave-holding  States, 
bringing  their  slave  property  with  them,  the  Territorial  Legislature,  in  defiance 
of  the  celebrated  ordinance  of  1787,  established  slavery  in  Illinois,  and  maintain- 
ed it  for  years.  It  was  abolished  because,  from  the  circumstances  of  our  climate 
and  soil,  and  productions,  it  was  found  not  to  be  profitable  or  conducive  to  our 
welfare.  If  we  had  lived  farther  south,  in  the  districts  which  produce  sugar, 
and  cotton,  and  rice,  we  would  have  seen  just  as  much  Virtue  in  slave  labor  as 
you  do  in  Louisiana.  And,  perhaps,  if  some  of  the  more  excitable  of  our 
southern  friends,  happened  to  live  among  the  granite  hills  of  New  Hamp- 
shire, they  would  entertain  very  different  views  from  those  they  now  hold. 
This  question  of  slavery  is  not  a question  of  legislation  at  all,  but  of  climate, 
soil,  and  self-interest.  You  can  establish  slavery  nowhere  by  any  law  of  Con- 
gress, or  of  a territorial  legislature,  or  by  any  other  power,  contrary  to  the  will 
of  the  people  where  it  is  to  exist ; and,  in  my  opinion,  you  should  never  be 
permitted  to  force  it  upon  au  unwilling  people. 

Our  kind  friends  over  in  Kentucky,  when  their  servants  became  old  and 
valueless,  and  a tax  on  their  masters,  showed  their  humanity  by  emancipating 
them  and  sending  them  into  Illinois.  This  was  also  the  case  in  other  slave 
States,  until  Illinois  was  in  danger  of  becoming  a free  negro  colony,  when  she 
found  it  necessary  to  provide  for  her  own  protection  by  enacting  that  no  more 
negroes  sliquld  come  to  Illinois  to  reside,  whether  free  or  slave.  Having  de- 
termined not  to  have  slavery,  she  would  not  establish  a free  negro  colony  for 
your  benefit.  Illinois  says  to  the  slave  States,  take  care  of  your  own  negroes, 
make  just  such  laws  as  you  choose  and  be  responsible  to  God  and  to  your  pos- 
terity. 

Let  us  alone  and  we  will  let  you  alone.  That  is  the  policy  of  Illinois  in  re- 
gard to  slavery  and  the  negro  question.  If  you  say  you  do  not  like  that  it 
cannot  be  helped.  Illinois  has  just  as  much  right  to  adopt  her  policy  as  you 
in  Louisiana  have  to  adopt  a different  policy.  We  are  prepared  to  make  a 
bargain  with  you,  or  rather  to  maintain  inviolate  the  bargain  our  fathers  made 
in  the  Federal  Constitution — which  enjoins  upon  every  State  the  duty  of  mind- 
ing its  own  business  and  letting  its  neighbors  alone.  Under  that  principle  this 
Union  can1  exist  forever — divided  into  free  and  slave  States,  each  State  having 
the  right  to  preserve  and  retain  slavery  as  long  as  it  chooses,  and  abolish  it 
whenever  it  pleases.  That  is  what  I mean  when  I say  that  the  Democratic 
party  is  a party  devoted  to  State  Rights  and  popular  Sovereignty,  in  oppo- 
sition to  that  other  policy  which  concentrates  the  liberties  and  rights  of  the 
people  in  the  Federal  Government. 

The  discussion  of  this  question  in  the  North  has  so  far  modified  public  opinion 
as  to  induce  a willingness  to  acquiesce  in  its  application  to  the  States,  but  the 
Black  Republicans  deny  the  propriety  of  applying  it  to  the  Territories. 

On  this  point  the  Abolitionists  assert  the  right  of  Congress,  under  the  Con- 
stitution, to  form  and  establish  for  the  people  of  the  Territories  their  domestic 
institutions,  without  their  consent.  The  Democratic  party  deny  that  Congress 
can  rightfully  exercise  any  such  authority. 

We  hold,  that  for  Congress  to  say  to  any  people,  you  sh^ll  or  shall  not  have 
snch  or  such  institutions,  is  a violation  of  the  great  principles  of  our  Federal 
Government.  In  the  discussion  of  these  questions,  I sometimes  go  back  to  the 
history  of  the  revolution,  and  show  that  the  same  principles  were  involved, 


7 


when  the  British  Government  attempted  to  pass  laws  for  the  American  colo- 
nies, without  giving  them  a representation  in  Parliament. 

In  opposition  to  this  claim  our  fathers  rose  up  and  said : "We  will  obey  these 
laws  of  Parliament,  which  are  imperial  laws,  and  not  local  laws — but  we  will 
not  submit  to  local  laws  affecting  our  domestic  institutions,  and  passed  without 
giving  us  a fair  representation  in  Parliament.  The  Democratic  party  now  says 
that  Congress  has  no  right  to  establish  or  to  prohibit  slavery.  We  say  that 
the  Territories  should  be  open  to  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  to  go  there 
with  their  property,  subject  alike  to  the  laws,  when  they  arrive  there.  But 
an  objection  is  raised  by  some  of  our  southern  friends,  and  I have  been  asked 
here  and  at  home,  what  I meant  by  the  doctrine  of  popular  sovereignty  in  the 
Territories,  and  whether  we  abide  by  the  Dred  Scott  decision.  In  a discussion 
with  my  opponent,  Mr.  Lincoln,  at  Freeport,  Illinois,  the  question  was  put  to 
me  whether,  in  the  event  of  the  people  or  Legislature  of  a Territory  being  hos- 
tile to  slavery,  there  was  any  lawful  means  by  which  slavery  could  be  excluded. 
I said  yes,  and  proceeded  to  state  the  means.  I will  state  them  here  to  you. 
The  Democracy  of  Illinois,  in  the  first  place,  accepts  the  decision  of  the  Su- 
preme Court  of  the  United  States  in  the  case  of  Dred  Scott,  as  an  authoritative 
interpretation  of  the  Constitution.  In  accordance  with  that  decision,  we  hold 
that  slaves  are  property,  and  hence  on  an  equality  with  all  other  kinds  of 
property,  and  that  the  owner  of  a slave  has  the  same  right  to  move  into  a 
Territory  and  carry  his  slave  property  with  him,  as  the  owner  of  any  other 
property  has  to  go  there  and  carry  his  property.  All  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  no  matter  whether  they  come  from  the  North  or  the  South,  from  a free 
State  or  a slave  State,  can  enter  a Territory  with  their  property  on  an  equal 
footing.  And,  I apprehend,  when  you  arrive  there  with  your  property,  of 
whatever  description,  it  is  subject  to  the  local  laws  of  the  Territory.  How  can 
your  slave  property  be  protected  without  local  law,  any  more  than  any  other 
kind  of  property?  The  Constitution  gives  you  the  right  to  go  into  a Territory 
and  carry  your  slaves  with  you,  the  same  as  any  other  species  of  pi-operty ; but 
it  does  not  punish  any  man  for  stealing  your  slaves  any  more  than  stealing  any 
other  kind  of  property.  Congress  has  never  yet  passed  a law  providing  a 
criminal  code  or  furnishing  protection  to  any  kind  of  property.  It  has  simply 
organized  the  Territory  and  established  a Legislature,  that  Legislature  being 
vested  with  legislative  power  over  all  rightful  subjects  of  legislation,  subject  only 
to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  Hence  whatever  jurisdiction  the  Legis- 
lature possesses  over  other  property,  it  has  over  slave  property,  no  more  no  less. 
Let  me  ask  you,  as  southern  men,  whether  you  can  hold  slaves  anywhere  unless 
protected  by  the  local  law?  Would  not  the  inaction  of  the  local  Legislature, 
its  refusal  to  provide  a slave  code,  or  to  punish  offences  against  that  species  of 
property,  exclude  slavery  just  as  effectually  as  a Constitutional  prohibition? 
Would  it  not  have  that  effect  in  Louisiana  and  in  every  other  State?  No  one 
will  deny  it.  Then,  let  me  ask  you,  if  the  people  of  a Territory  refuse  to  pass 
a slave  code,  how  are  you  going  to  make  them  do  it?  When  you  give  them 
power  to  legislate  on  all  rightful  subjects  of  legislation,  it  becomes  a question 
for  them  to  decide,  and  not  for  you. 

If  the  local  Legislature  imposes  a tax  on  horses,  or  any  other  kind  of  proper- 
ty, you  may  think  it  a hardship,  but  how  are  you  going  to  help  it?  Just  so  it 
is  with  regard  to  traffic  in  liquors.  If  you  are  dealing  in  liquors,  you  have  the 
same  right  to  take  your  liquor  into  the  Territory  that  anybody  else  has  to  take 
any  other  species  of  property.  You  may  pass  through  and  take  your  liquors 
in  transitu,  and  you  will  be  protected  in  your  right  of  property  under  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States;  but  if  you  open  the  packages  they  become  sub- 
ject to  the  local  law  ; and  should  the  Maine  law  happen  to  prevail  in  the  Ter- 
ritory, you  had  better  travel  with  your  liquors.  Hence,  if  the  local  Legislature 
has  the  same  power  over  slave  property  as  over  every  other  species  of  property, 
what  right  have  you  to  complain  of  that  equality ! But  if  you  do  complain 
where  is  your  remedy?  And  let  me  say  to  you  that  if  you  oppose  this  just 
doctrine,  if  you  attempt  to  exempt  slaves  from  the  same  rules  that  apply  to 
every  other  kind  of  property,  you  will  abandon  your  strongest  ground  of 
defence  against  the  assaults  of  the  Black  Republicans  and  Abolitionists.  If  the 


8 


people  of  a Territory  are  in  favor  of  slavery  tliey  -will  make  laws  to  protect  it; 
if  opposed  to  slavery  they  -will  not  make  those  laws  and  you  can  not  compel 
them  to  do  it.  But  I will  tell  you  when  they  will  have  it,  and  when  slavery 
will  find  protection  in  a Territory.  It  is  when  the  territory  lies  in  those  lati- 
tudes and  climates  which  adapt  it  to  the  profitable  production  of  rice  and 
sugar  and  cotton,  and  where  slave  labor  will  be  remunerative.  Thus,  slavery 
will  exist  wherever  soil,  climate,  and  productions  demand  it,  and  it  will  exist 
nowhere  else.  Now,  if  climate,  and  soil,  and  self-interest  will  regulate  this 
question,  why  should  we  quarrel  about  it?  When  you  arrive  at  a certain  dis- 
tance to  the  North  of  the  line  there  can  not  be  any  doubt  of  the  result:  and 
so  when  you  go  a certain  distance  South  the  result  will  be  equally  certain 
the  other  way.  But  in  the  great  central  regions,  where  there  may  be  some 
doubt  as  to  the  effect  of  natural  causes,  who  ought  to  decide  the  question  ex- 
cept the  people  residing  there,  who  have  all  their  interests  there;  who  have 
gone  there  to  live  with  their  wives  and  children?  Any  party  which  at- 
tempts, by  a system  of  coercion,  to  force  any  institutions  into  regions  not 
adopted  to  them,  violates  the  great  principles  on  which  our  Government  is 
founded. 

You  now  have  my  views  on  the  subject  of  slavery  in  the  Territories.  Prac- 
tically, they  amount  simply  to  this:  If  the  people  want  slavery  they  will  have 
it;  if  they  do  not  want  it  they  will  not  have  it,  and  you  cannot  force  it  upon 
them.  If  these  principles  be  recognised  and  adhered  to,  we  can  live  in  peace 
and  harmony  together;  but  just  as  surely  as  you  attempt  to  force  the  people  to 
have  slavery,  against  their  will,  in  regions  to  which  it  is  not  adapted,  fanaticism 
will  take  control  of  the  Federal  Government. 

It  was  on  the:r  principles  that,  last  winter,  I resisted  the  admission  of  Kansas 
under  the  Lecompton  constitution.  I have  said,  what  I repent  here,  that  my 
opposition  was  not  based  upon  any  provision  in  that  constitution  relating  to 
the  subject  of  slavery.  I then  said  that  if  Kansas  wanted  to  be  a slaveholding 
State,  she  had  a right  to  be  so,  and  if  she  wanted  to  be  a free  State,  she  had 
the  same  right.  If  the  Lecompton  constitution  was  an  embodiment  of  the  peo- 
ple’s will,  it  ought  to  have  been  accepted.  If  it  was  not  an  embodiment  of 
their  will,  it  ought  not  to  have  been  forced  upon  them.  And  now  let  me  reason 
with  you,  as  southern  men,  on  this  question.  If  we  are  going  to  live  in  peace 
together,  we  must  act  in  harmony  in  the  application  of  all  just  and  fair  princi- 
ples. Suppose  that,  last  winter,  we  had  had  an  Abolition  President,  an  Abo- 
lition majority  in  both  Houses  of  Congress,  and  that  Kansas  had  had  an 
Abolition  Governor  and  authorities.  Suppose  that  by  some  means — just  such 
means  as  those  by  which  the  Lecompton  convention  was  called — a convention 
had  assembled  composed  of  Abolitionists.  Suppose  the  understanding  to  have 
been  that  the  constitution  was  to  be  submitted  to  the  people;  that  the  conven- 
tion had  assembled,  and  it  was  discovered  that  the  pro-slavery  men  were  in  a 
majority  of  five  to  one  in  the  Territory.  Suppose,  under  these  circumstances, 
the  convention  had  refused  to  submit  the  constitution  to  the  people,  and  had 
attempted  to  force  an  Abolition  constitution  down  the  throats  of  a pro-slavery 
people  against  their  will.  Would  you,  the  people  of  the  South,  have  submitted 
to  such  a wrong?  Would  you  have  suffered  an  Abolition  constitution  to  be 
forced  down  the  throats  of  the  people  of  any  Territory  in  opposition  to  their 
wishes,  more  especially  had  such  a constitution  contained  a provision  that  it 
should  not  be  changed  for  seven  years,  and  not  then  except  by  a two-thirds 
vote;  so  that  the  minority  having  once  fastened  it  on  the  people,  that  same 
minority  could  perpetuate  it  forever  in  opposition  to  the  wishes  of  the  majority. 

Now,  if  I do  not  mistake  the  southern  character  and  southern  patriotism,  you 
would  never  have  submitted  patiently  and  calmly  to  such  an  attempt  to  violate 
the  great  principles  of  self-government.  I am  not  going  to  enter  upon  a dis- 
cussion as  to  whether  this  constitution  was  the  act  of  the  people  of  Kansas.  If 
it  was  not  their  act,  then  I was  right  in  opposing  it;  if  it  was  their  act,  then 
you  can  draw  your  own  inferences.  I will  only  say  now,  that  it  was  sent  back 
to  the  people  of  Kansas  under  the  provisions  of  the  English  bill,  which  sub- 
mitted the  question  in  an  indirect  manner,  and  was  rejected  by  a vote  of  eight 
to  one.  Under  these  circumstances,  who  can  say  that  it  ever  was  the  act  of 


9 


the  people  of  Kansas.  But  I am  not  going  to  re-open  that  question.  It  is  now 
settled.  Let  the  asperities  growing  out  of  the  controversy  die  with  the  con- 
troversy. 

All  I ask  is,  that  in  future  we  recognize  the  right  of  the  people  of  a Territory 
to  form  a free  State,  or  a slave  State,  as  they  may  choose,  and  come  into  the 
Union  on  an  equality  with  the  other  States. 

A few  words  more  and  I have  done.  I will  only  say  to  you,  in  conclusion, 
that  if  we  recognize  and  observe  this  principle  of  State  rights  and  self-govern- 
ment for  the  people  of  the  Territories,  there  will  be  peace  forever  between  the 
North  and  South,  and  America  will  fulfil  the  glorious  destiny  which  the  Al- 
mighty has  marked  out  for  her.  She  will  remain  an  example  for  all  nations, 
expanding  as  her  people  increase  and  her  interests  demand  more  territory.  I 
am  not  in  favor  of  the  acquisition  of  territory  by  fraud,  violence,  or  improper 
means  of  any  kind;  on  the  contrary,  I would  never  permit  the  Federal  Gov- 
ernment to  be  an  instrument  in  the  hands  of  foreign  powers  to  carry  out 
their  purposes  upon  the  American  Continent.  Let  us  adopt  a policy  consistent 
with  our  destiny,  and  then  bide  our  time. 

[Mr.  Douglas  was  apparentl}’  about  to  bring  his  remarks  to  a close  at  this 
point,  when,  in  response  to  calls  of  Cuba!  Cuba  I from  the  audience,  he  pro- 
ceeded thus :] 

It  is  our  destiny  to  have  Cuba,  and  it  is  folly  to  debate  the  question.  It 
naturally  belongs  to  the  American  Continent.  It  guards  the  mouth  of  the  Mis- 
sissippi river,  which  is  the  heart  of  the  American  Continent  and  the  body  of 
the  American  nation. 

Its  acquisition  is  a matter  of  time  only.  Our  Government  should  adopt  the 
policy  of  receiving  Cuba  as  soon  as  a fair  and  just  opportunity  shall  be  presented. 
Whether  that  opportunity  occur  next  year  or  the  year  after,  whenever  the  oc- 
casion arises  and  the  opportunity  presents  itself,  it  should  be  embraced. 

The  same  is  true  of  Central  America  and  Mexico.  It  will  not  do  to  say  we 
have  territory  enough.  When  the  Constitution  was  formed,  there  was  enough, 
yet,  in  a few  years  afterwards,  vfe  needed  more.  We  acquired  Louisiana  and 
Florida,  Texas  and  California,  just  as  the  increase  in  our  population  and  our 
interests  demanded.  When,  in  1850,  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty  was  sent  to  the 
Senate  for  ratification,  I fought  it  to  the  end.  They  then  asked  what  I wanted 
with  Central  America.  I told  them  I did  not  want  it  then,  but  the  time  would 
come  when  we  must  have  it.  They  then  asked  what  my  objection  to  the  treaty 
was.  I told  them  I objected  to  that,  among  other  clauses  of  it,  which  said 
that  neither  Great  Britain  nor  the  United  States  should  ever  buy,  annex,  colo- 
nize, or  acquire  any  portion  of  Central  America.  I said  I would  never  consent 
to  a treaty  with  any  foreign  power,  pledging  ourselves  not  to  do  in  the  future 
whatever  interest  or  necessity  might  compel  us  to  do.  I was  then  told  by 
veteran  Senators,  as  my  distinguished  friend  well  knows,  (looking  towards  Mr. 
Soule,)  that  Central  America  was  so  far  off  that  we  should  never  want  it.  I 
told  them  then,  “Yes;  a good  way  off — half  way  to  California,  and  on  the 
diiect  road  to  it.”  I said  it  was  our  right  and  duty  to  open  all  the  highways 
between  the  Atlantic  and  the  Gulf  States  and  our  possessions  on  the  Pacific, 
and  that  I would  enter  into  no  treaty  with  Great  Britain  or  any  other  Govern- 
ment concerning  the  affairs  of  the  American  continent.  And  here,  without  a 
bceach  of  confidence,  I may  be  permitted  to  state  a conversation  which  took 
place  at  that  time  between  myself  and  the  British  Minister,  Sir  Henry  Lytton 
Bulwer,  on  that  point.  He  took  occasion  to  remonstrate  with  me  that  my  position 
with  regard  to  the  treaty  was  unjust  and  untenable;  that  the  treaty  was  fair 
because  it  was  reciprocal,  and  it  was  reciprocal  because  it  pledged  that  neither 
Great  Britain  nor  the  United  States  should  ever  purchase,  colonize,  or  acquire 
any  territory  in  Central  America.  I told  him  that  it  would  be  fair  if  they 
would  add  one  word  to  the  treaty — so  that  it  would  read  that  neither  Great 
Britain  nor  the  United  States  should  ever  occupy  or  hold  dominion  over  Central 
America  or  Asia.  But  he  said:  “You  have  no  interests  in  Asia “No,”  an- 
swered I,  “ and  you  have  none  in  Central  America.” 

“But,”  said  he,  “you  can  never  establish  any  rights  in  Asia.”  “No,”  said  I, 
“ and  we  don’t  mean  that  you  shall  ever  establish  any  in  America.”  I told  him 


10 


it  would  be  just  as  respectful  for  us  to  ask  that  pledge  in  reference  to  Asia,  as 
it  was  for  Great  Britain  to  ask  it  from  us  in  reference  to  Central  America. 

If  experience  shall  continue  to  prove,  what  the  past  may  be  considered  to 
have  demonstrated,  that  those  little  Central  American  powers  cannot  maintain 
self-government,  the  interests  of  Christendom  require  that  some  power  should 
preserve  order  for  them.  Hence,  I maintain  that  we  should  adopt  and  observe 
a line  of  policy  in  unison  with  our  own  interests  and  our  destiny.  I do  not 
wish  to  force  things.  We  live  in  a rapid  age.  Events  crowd  upon  each  other 
with  marvelous  rapidity.  I do  not  want  territory  any  faster  than  we  can  oc- 
cupy, Americanize,  and  civilize  it.  I am  no  fillibuster.  I am  opposed  to  un- 
lawful expeditions;  but  on  the  other  hand,  I am  opposed  to  this  country  acting 
as  a miserable  constabulary  for  France  and  England. 

I am  in  favor  of  expansion  as  fast  as  consistent  with  our  interest  and  the  in- 
crease and  development  of  our  population  and  resources.  But  I am  not  in 
favor  of  that  policy  unless  the  great  principal  of  non-intervention  and  the 
right  of  the  people  to  decide  the  question  of  slavery,  and  all  other  domestic 
questions,  for  themselves  shall  be  maintained.  If  that  principle  prevail,  we 
have  a future  before  us  more  glorious  than  that  of  any  other  people  that  ever 
existed.  Our  Republic  will  endure  for  thousands  of  years.  Progress  will  be 
the  law  of  its  destiny ; it  will  gain  new  strength  with  every  State  brought  into 
the  Confederacy.  Then  there  will  be  peace  and  harmony  between  the  free 
States  and  the  slave  States.  The  more  degrees  of  latitude  and  longitude  em- 
braced beneath  our  Constitution,  the  better.-  The  greater  the  variety  of  pro- 
ductions, the  better;  for  then  we  shall  have  the  principles  of  free  trade  apply 
to  the  important  staples  of  the  world,  making  us  the  greatest  planting  as  well 
as  the  greatest  manufacturing,  the  greatest  commercial  as  well  as  the  greatest 
agricultural  power  on  the  globe. 

These  are  my  views  in  regard  to  our  foreign  relations.  They  are  questions 
I had  not  intended  to  discuss;  and  I should  not  have  done  so  if  some  gentleman 
in  the  crowd  had  not  called  my  attention  to  them.  My  votes  in  Congress  have 
always  been  in  harmony  with  the  line  of  policy  I have  here  marked  out.  It 
matters  not  whether  you  acquire  more  territory,  or  how  much  or  how  little 
you  wish  to  acquire.  Expansion  is  the  law  of  our  existence;  when  we  cease 
to  grow,  we  commence  to  decline.  Hence  our  course  is  onward,  on  the  princi- 
ple established  by  our  fathers,  under  divine  inspiration,  as  I believe,  in  the 
formation  of  the  Government. 

And  now  permit  me  to  return  my  grateful  acknowledgements  for  the  kind- 
ness with  which  you  have  listened  to  me,  and  to  retire. 


* 


SPEECH 


AT 

INDEPENDENCE  HALL,  PHILADELPHIA, 

> TO  THE 

MAYOR,  COUNCIL,  AND  CITIZENS  COMMITTEE, 

JANUARY  4,  1859. 


¥m.  E.  Lehman,  Esq.,  on  behalf  of  the  citizens’  committee,  introduced  Sen- 
ator Douglas  to  the  Mayor  and  Councils.  He  said: 

Mayor  Henry:  It  -was  my  agreeable  duty  to  be  one  of  the  committee  ap- 
pointed to  go  to  New  York,  and  wait  upon  the  distinguished  Senator  of  Illinois, 
and  extend  to  him  a cordial  invitation  to  visit  our  city.  In  the  performance  of 
that  duty,  I not  only  represented  his  personal  and  political  friends,  but,  in  a 
measure,  the  corporate  authorities  of  the  city.  I informed  Senator  Douglas 
that  the  Councils  of  the  city,  without  distinction  of  party,  had  unanimously 
tendered  him  the  use  of  Independence  Hall  to  receive  his  friends,  and  that  it 
was  your  intention,  as  Chief  Magistrate  of  this  municipality,  to  welcome  him. 
I deem  it  proper  to  state  that  the  Senator,  in  his  reply,  consented  to  waive  all 
his  private  arrangements,  and  to  forego  engagements  of  a pressing  public  na- 
ture, to  accept  this  grateful  tribute  of  respect.  It  is  with  great  pleasure  that 
I now  introduce  to  you  the  illustrious  Senator. 

Mayor  Henry  then  addressed  Senator  Douglas  in  the  following : 

Mr.  Senator:  The  Councils  of  Philadelphia  have  tendered  you,  in  passing 
through  this  city,  the  use  of  the  Hall  of  Independence  for  the  reception  of  your 
friends,  and  in  their  name  I welcome  you  upon  this  occasion. 

This  spot  is  the  common  heritage  of  American  freemen.  Within  these  walls, 
memorable  for  the  most  illustrious  deed  in  our  country’s  history,  hallowed  more 
than  once  by  the  ashes  of  the  mighty  dead,  cherished  as  the  depository  of  the 
mementoes  of  patriots  and  heroes,  all  other  sentiments  merge  in  that  of  unal- 
loyed devotion  to  the  Union,  its  prosperity  and  its  perpetuity. 

I greet  you,  sir,  as  a member  of  those  National  Councils  on  whom  devolves 
the  guardianship  of  our  nation’s  interest  and  destiny ; as  one  whose  eminent 
position  in  those  councils  has  elicited  the  admiration  and  respect  of  so  many 
of  your  fellow-citizens. 

Permit  me,  individually,  to  express  my  wishes  for  your  personal  welfare,  and 
the  assurance  that  the  hospitality  of  Philadelphia  will  be  well  cared  for  by 
your  surrounding  friends. 

Senator  Douglas’s  Speech. 

Senator  Douglas,  in  response,  said : Mr.  Mayor — It  has  fallen  to  my  lot,  as  a 
public  man  and  as  a politician,  to  receive  many  testimonials  from  political  and 
partisan  friends,  which,  under  the  circumstances,  were  most  grateful  to  my 
feelings;  but  the  tender  of  the  use  of  this  hall  voluntarily,  as  I am  informed, 
by  the  unanimous  sentiment  of  the  corporate  authorities  of  the  city  of  Phila- 
delphia— this  hall,  within  whose  sacred  precincts  no  thought  or  no  sentiment 
can  enter  any  citizen’s  breast  inconsistent  with  the  peace  of  the  Republic  and 
the  perpetuity  of  the  Union — is  a compliment  that  overwhelms  me  with  grati- 


12 


tude.  In  tliis  hall  we  find  the  pictures,  and  we  feel  the  influence  of  the  spirit, 
of  those  sages  and  patriots  to  whom  we  owe  our  independence  and  our 
constitutional  form  of  government.  Ilere  that  sentiment  which  now  ani- 
mates all  the  free  governments  of  the  earth  first  found  its  authoritative  ex- 
position and  proclamation.  There  stands  the  hell  which  “proclaimed  liberty 
throughout  the  land,  unto  all  the  inhabitants  thereof;”  and  it  seems  as  if  the 
inscription  it  bears  was  directed  by  the  hand  of  Divine  Providence,  for  it  was 
placed  upon  it  far  in  advance  of  the  period  when  any  human  brain  could 
foresee  that  it  was  to  be  used  to  proclaim  the  independence  of  America  over 
the  nrbitary  decrees  of  a British  Parliament.  A great  principle  proclaimed 
by  the  fathers  of  the  Republic  in  this  hall,  was  the  right  of  the  people  of  all 
the  States,  of  all  the  provinces  and  dependencies,  and  of  every  community, 
to  regulate  its  own  domestic  concerns  and  internal  affairs  in  its  own  way. 
Pennsylvania  has  always  been  true  to  that  cardinal  principle  of  representative 
government.  Pennsylvania,  with  her  Franklin,  and  those  congenial  spirits 
who  gave  impulse  to  the  Revolution,  foresaw  that  the  time  might  come, 
when,  after  having  maintained  her  independence  against  the  British  Parlia- 
ment, another  imperial  parliament  might  be  established  on  her  own  continent 
equally  destructive  to  the  liberties  of  the  people  and  the  rights  of  the  citizens, 
and  hence  Pennsylvania,  in  her  instructions  to  her  delegates  who  represented 
her  in  this  hall,  when  she  anticipated  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  em- 
powered them  to  give  her  assent  to  that  declaration  on  the  fundamental  con- 
dition that  Pennsylvania  retained  unto  herself  forever  the  right  to  rua  age  her 
local  and  domestic  concerns  and  police  regulations  in  her'own  way,  indepen- 
dent of  any  other  power  on  the  face  of  the  globe. 

Sir,  If  we  remain  true  to  these  great  principles  of  constitutional  liberty  pro- 
claimed by  our  fathers  in  this  hall,  and  consummated  by  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States  within  the  precincts  of  Philadelphia,  this  Union  may  last 
forever  as  our  forefathers  made  it,  each  State  retaining  just  such  local  and 
domestic  institutions  as  it  shall  choose.  If  my  devotion  to  these  constitu- 
tional, conservative  principles  of  liberty  have  attracted  to  me  the  attention  of 
the  constituted  authorities  of  this  vast  city,  it  is  a great  reward  for  all  of  the 
toils  that  have  accompanied  my  public  life.  I appreciate  it  a thousand  times 
more  than  any  partisan  triumph  which  a transient  politician  may  acquire  in 
the  road  through  life,  for  such  a triumph  must  necessarily  be  ephemeral  in  its 
character. 

Mr.  Mayor,  discarding  all  partisan  spirit,  as  you  have  done,  I accept  this 
honor  with  a grateful  heart.  I have  not  the  vanity  that  would  receive  it  as  a 
mark  of  personal  respect.  I am  glad  to  know  that  I have  the  esteem  individu- 
ally of  yourself;  but  it  is  far  more  grateful  to  me,  as  a public  man,  to  know 
that  yovr  sympathy  is  aroused  by  public  duties  calculated  to  sustain  and  per- 
petuate those  principles  of  civil  and  religious  liberty  which  our  fathers  have 
transmitted  to  us.  May  we  be  successful  in  handing  down  to  our  children,  and 
through  our  children  to  our  last  posterity,  those  immortal  principles  which 
were  first  proclaimed  in  this  Hall,  the  witnesses  of  which  stand  now,  like  guar- 
dian angels,  looking  down  upon  our  every  act,  and  inspiring  our  prayers  to 
Heaven  that  this  Union,  this  Constitution,  these  States,  as  they  exist,  and  have 
existed,  may  last  forever,  not  only  for  the  protection  of  our  own  people,  but  as 
a guide  to  the  friends  of  freedom  throughout  the  world. 

• Returning  my  grateful  acknowledgements,  I can  only  say  that  when  I leave 
here  I shall  carry  with  me  a recollection  of  this  day  which  will  never  be  effaced 
while  life  lasts,  and  over  the  memory  of  which,  I trust,  ray  children  will  feel 
more  proud  than  of  any  act  that  has  heretofore  marked  my  public  life. 


SPEECH 


BEFORE 

THE  CITIZENS  OF  BALTIMORE,  MARYLAND, 

°N  {V 

THE  EVENING  OF  JANUARY  5,  1859, 

WSien  Serenaded  toy  tl>esn  at  tlse  Gilmore  Meuse. 


Hr.  Douglas  having  been  introduced,  said: 

Fellow-citizens  of  Baltimore:  It  was  my  expectation  to  have  passed  quietly 
through  your  city,  as  it  has  been  my  custom  for  the  last  fifteen  years,  upon  my 
way  to  the  National  Capitol.  No  longer  ago  than  yesterday,  I sent  a tele- 
graphic despatch  to  my  family,  informing  them  that  they  might  expect  me 
there  to-night,  when  I was  notified  that  my  fellow-citizens  of  this  beautiful 
city  had  appointed  a committee  to  meet  me  half  way  between  this  and  Phila- 
delphia, and  escort  me  here.  I did  not  feel  at  liberty  to  disregard  their  kind  re- 
quest. I was  more  willing  to  stop  and  spend  a night  with  you,  and  exchange 
my  opinions  with  yours,  for  the  reason  that  1 desire  to  know  whether  my  prin- 
ciples may  be  avowed  in  a slave  State  the  same  as  in  a free  State — in  the  South 
and  in  the  North  alike,  wherever  the  American  flag  waves  over  the  American 
soil.  So  long  as  we  live  under  the  Constitution,  any  political  creed  which  can 
not  be  avowed  in  the  same  terms,  and  sustained  by  the  same  arguments  in 
every  State  in  the  Union,  must  be  a fatal  heresy. 

Principles  to  be  sound  must  be  the  same  in  Maryland  as  they  are  in  the 
Nortli ; the  same  in  New  Orleans  as  they  are  in  New  York  and  New  England; 
the  same  in  the  slaveholding  States  as  they  are  in  the  free  States.  We  have 
been  precipitated  for  the  last  four  years  into  a fearful  sectional  struggle,  in 
which  the  North  has  been  rallied  against  the  South,  and  the  South  rallied 
agaiust  the  North  on  this  negro  question. 

What  I desire  to  know  is,  whether  there  is  not  a common  ground  of  funda- 
mental principles  under  all  our  institutions,  upon  which  northern  and  southern 
men  can  stand  together,  as  brethren,  without  their  surrendering  any  right 
which  belongs  to  them  under  the  Constitution. 

Equality'  among  the  different  States  is  a fundamental  principle,  and  as  a 
natural  consequence  from  that  equality'  of  States  results  equality  of  the  citi- 
zens of  all  the  States  of  the  Union.  Any  political  creed  is  wrong  that  threatens 
injustice  to  any  section  or  to  any  State,  or  the  inhabitants  thereof,  in  order  to 
benefit  any  other  State  or  any  other  section.  We  have  recently  been  told,  first 
in  Uliuois  by  the  champion  of  Abolitionism,  and  subsequently  in  New  York  by 
Mr.  Seward,  that  this  Union  cannot  endure  divided  into  free  and  slave  States  as 
our  fathers  made  it.  We  have  been  told  that  these  States  must  become  all  free 
or  all  slave;  that  they  must  be  all  one  thing,  or  all  be  the  other,  otherwise  that 
this  Union  cannot  endure.  In  other  words,  Abolitionism  seems  to  suppose  that 
there  must  be  uniformity  in  the  domestic  institutions  of  all  the  States.  Diver- 
sity among  the  'local  and  domestic  institutions  is  the  inevitable  result  of  our 
political  system.  Uniformity  is  neither  possible  nor  desirable.  Our  fathers, 
when  they  formed  this  Union,  knew  that,  in  a Republic  as  broad  and  as  expen- 
sive as  this,  with  such  a variety  of  climate,  soil  and  productions,  there  must 
necessarily  be  a corresponding  variety  in  the  local  and  domestic  institutions  of 
each  State,  adapted  to  the  wants,  conditions,  and  interests  of  each  locality. 


14 


Why  was  this  Union  formed  originally,  with  thirteen  independent  sovereign- 
ties, each  with  a seperate  Legislature  of  its  own,  and  the  right  to  make  such 
laws  as  it  desired,  unless  it  was  expected  that  each  State  had  interests  differing 
from  every  other  and  requiring  laws  and  institutions  in  some  respect  different? 
Our  fathers  knew  that  the  laws  and  institutions  which  were  well  adapted  to 
the  granite  hills  of  New  England,  were  not  well  suited  to  the  tobaceo  planta- 
tions of  Maryland.  They  knew  that  each  locality  required  different  laws 
adapted  to  its  own  interests ; and  hence,  that  each  State  must  have  a Legisla- 
ture of  its  own  to  attend  to  its  domestic  concerns.  If  you  will  examine  the 
history  of  the  Revolutionary  struggle,  you  will  find  that  your  own  beloved 
State  would  not  consented  the  Declaration  of  Independence  except  on  the  fun- 
damental condition  that  Maryland  should  retain  forever  the  right  to  regulate 
her  domestic  concerns  and  internal  affairs  to  suit  herself,  without  interference 
from  any  other  State  or  from  the  Federal  Government. 

You  have  regulated  your  affairs  to  suit  yourselves,  you  have  prescribed  what 
shall  be  the  relative  position  of  the  negro  and  the  white  mau  in  Maryland.  I 
shall  not  stop  to  inquire  whether  yTour  decision  is  wise  or  unwise;  that  is  your 
business,  not  mine.  All  I have  to  say  is,  you  have  a right  to  decide  that  ques- 
tion for  yrourselves,  and  having  decided  it,  we  have  no  right  to  meddle  with 
that  decision.  If  we  do  not  like  your  laws  all  we  have  to  do  is  to  stay  away 
where  we  will  not  come  under  their  operation.  So  it  is  in  the  State  of  Illinois; 
she  is  a sovereign  power  as  well  as  Maryland.  We  have  adopted  a different 
system  of  policy  in  some  respects  from  yours.  We  have  as  much  right  to  pre- 
scribe our  policy  as  you  have  to  adopt  yours,  and  we  are  prepared  to  make  a 
bargain  with  you,  or  rather  w.e  are  prepared  to  stand  by  that  bargain  which 
our  fathers  made  in  the  Federal  Constitution,  to  let  you  attend  to  your  own  af- 
fairs and  mind  your  own  business,  you  leaving  us  alone  to  attend  to  our  affairs 
and  mind  our  business.  It  is  none  of  your  business  whether  we  have  negroes 
or  not.  If  you  want  them,  have  them;  if  you  do  not  want  them,  exclude 
them. 

It  is  none  of  our  business  whether  you  have  slaves  or  not.  So  long  as  you 
believe  it  is  to  }’our  interest  to  retain  African  slavery  do  so,  and  when  you  get 
tired  of  it,  abolish  it ; but  do  not  humble  yourselves  or  tarnish  your  sovereignty 
by  taking  advice  from  Congress  upon  that  subject.  That  is  what  we  north- 
western Democrats  mean  by  popular  sovereignty.  When  this  Union  was 
formed  it  consisted  of  twelve  slaveholding  States  and  one  free  State.  Acting 
on  this  principle  of  popular  sovereignty,  each  State  being  left  to  decide  for 
itself,  the  New  England  States  abolished  slavery ; then  New  York;  then  New 
Jersey,  and  then  Pennsylvania.  Uuder  what  principle  was  it  that  slavery  dis- 
appeared from  those  Slates,  except  it  was  that  of  the  right  of  the  people  of  each 
State  to  decide  for  themselves?  In  New  England  they  abolished  slavery  when 
they  found  that  it  was  contrary  to  their  interests  to  continue  it.  We  in  Illi- 
nois, while  a Territory,  established  African  slavery  in  defiance  of  the  ordinance 
of  1787,  and  we  tried  it  for  many  years,  until  we  came  to  form  a constitution 
for  admission  into  the  Union  as  a State.  By  that  time  we  had  discovered  that 
in  our  climate,  with  our  soil  and  our  surroundings,  it  was  not  to  our  interests  to 
continue  it,  and  therefore  we  abolished  it.  If  we  had  found  that  our  climate, 
our  soil,  and  our  productions  required  negro  labor,  we  would  have  held  on  to 
it  with  the  same  tenacity  as  the  other  slave  States. 

Permit  me  here  to  remark  that  this  Slavery  question  rests  upon  laws  higher 
than  those  of  legislative  enactment.  It  depends  upon  the  laws  of  climate,  of 
production,  and  of  self-interest.  Wherever  cotton,  and  sugar,  and  rice,  and  in- 
digo are  the  staple  articles,  and  the  climate  is  such  as  to  exclude  white  labor, 
the  negro  must  take  the  place  of  the  white  man  on  the  plantation.  When  you 
get  into  those  hot  climates,  it  is  not  a struggle  between  the  negro  and  the  white 
man,  but  a struggle  between  the  negro  and  the  crocodile,  which  shall  occupy 
the  Delta  line,  in  those  Delta  lands  slavery  must  exist,  negro  labor  must  be 
employed,  otherwise  their  cultivation  must  be  abandoned,  while  in  those  high 
northern  latitudes,  where  the  earth  is  covered  with  deep  snows,  and  where 
there  is.  a severe  climate,  illy  adapted  to  the  constitution  of  the  negro,  and  bet- 
ter suited  to  the  white  man,  slavery  can  never  exist,  because  it  is  not  the  in- 


15 


terest  of  the  people  to  have  it.  The  only  difficulty  in  regard  to  this  slavery 
question  is  that  there  is  a medium  climate,  and  it  maybe  controverted  -whether 
such  a climate  is  best  adopted  to  white  or  black  labor.  Who  shall  decide  the 
contest  there  unless  it  be  those  who  live  there,  who  have  moved  there  with  their 
wives  and  children,  made  it  their  home,  and  have  a better  opportunity  of  judg- 
ing what  they  want  than  those  residing  at  a distance.  Hence  leave  this  ques- 
tion to  climate,  to  self-interest,  to  the  decision  of  the  people  interested,  and 
there  will  be  peace,  harmony  and  fraternity,  among  all'  the  States  of  this  Con- 
federacy. 

In  accordance  with  this  principle  I brought  forward  the  bill  to  blot  out  the 
Missouri  Compromise  line — that  black  line  which  ran  across  the  Continent,  fix- 
ing a stigma  upon  the  local  and  domestic  institutions  ot  half  of  the  States  of 
this  Union — in  order  to  substitute  in  its  place  the  great  fundamental  principle 
of  self-government,  upon  which  all  our  free  institutions  rest.  Now,  why  should 
not  that  principle  prevail.  Perhaps  it  does  not  suit  Abolitionists  and  agitators, 
but  it  does  suit  the  great  mass  of  the  people,  who  only  want  such  laws  as  are 
adapted  to  their  interests,  and  who  best  know  what  those  laws  should  be. 

I know  that  there  are  those  who  believe  that  slavery  is  such  a crime  that  it 
should  be  abolished  at  any  risk.  I hold  that  it  is  the  right  of  the  people  to  de- 
cide for  themselves  whether  it  is  crime  or  not.  Those  who  hold  that  it  is,  tell 
us  that  the  Declaration  of  Independence  declares  all  men  to  have  been  created 
equal,  and  assuming  that  this  declaration  includes  the  negro,  demand  that  he 
shall  be  placed  on  an  equality  with  the  white  man.  My  answer  to  that  argu- 
ment is  this — the  signers  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  had  no  reference 
whatever  to  the  negro,  when  they  declared  all  men  to  have  been  created  equal. 
They  were  speaking  of  white  men  ; of  men  of  European  birth  and  descent,  and 
nobody  else,  when  they  declared  the  equality  of  all  men.  This  government  was 
founded  on  the  white  basis;  it  was  made  by  white  men,  for  the  benefit  of  white 
men,  to  be  administered  by  white  men.  But  it  does  not  follow  by  any  means 
that  because  the  negro  is  no  component  part  of  this  government,  because  he  is 
not  a citizen,  and  ought  never  to  be  a citizen,  that  he  must  necessarily  be  a 
slave.  On  the  contrary,  it  does  follow  that  you  should  extend  to  the  negro, 
and  to  every  other  dependent  race,  all  the  rights,  all  the  privileges,  and  all  the 
immunities  which  can  be  safely  given  him  consistent  with  the  good  of  society. 

On  that  principle  alone  all  men  ought  to  agree.  But,  when  you  come  to  ap- 
ply the  principle,  you  will  ask  me  what  are  the  rights  and  privileges  that  I 
would  give  the  negro.  My  answer  is,  that  is  a question  which  the  people  of 
each  State  must  decide  for  themselves.  It  may  be  proper  to  grant  to  the  negro 
in  Illinois  privileges  which  it  would  not  be  safe  to  give  him  in  Maryland,  and 
hence  it  is  a question  for  us  to  decide  for  ourselves  in  that  State,  and  for  you  to 
decide  for  yourselves  in  this  State.  So  it  is  with  all  other  domestic  relations; 
each  State  must  decide  for  itself  what  the  relation  shall  be,  not  only  between 
master  and  servant,  but  between  husband  and  wife,  parent  and  child,  guardian 
and  ward;  and,  also,  what  shall  be  the  banking  system,  the  school  system,  the 
railroad  system,  and  every  other  system,  affecting  their  rights,  their  persons, 
and  their  property.  Let  these  principles  of  State  rights  and  State  sovereignty 
prevail,  and  there  will  be  no  cause  for  jealousy  and  collision  between  the  differ- 
ent States  and  Territoies.  Let  these  principles  be  applied  in  good  faith,  and 
then  this  Government  is  capable  of  indefinite  expansion,  and  will  expand  as 
fast  as  we  need  more  territory  and  find  it  to  our  interest  to  acquire  it. 

We  are  a growing  nation,  increasing  and  spreading  every  year;  for  the  pre- 
sent, we  have  territory  enough,  but  we  must  enlarge  our  borders  as  fast  as  w« 
fill  up  that  territory,  and  must  Americanize  that  which  adjoins  us.  Let  us  then 
pursue  a policy  both  foreign  and  domestic,  consistent  with  the  destiny  which 
the  Almighty  has  marked  out  for  us.  I never  have  and  never  will  give  a vote 
for  a treaty  which  binds  the  American  people  never  to  do  on  the  American  con- 
tinent that  which  our  interest,  our  honor  and  safety  may  compel  us  to  do.  I 
felt  it  my  duty  to  resist  the  Clayton  and  Bulwer  treaty  when  it  was  made.  I 
objected  especially  to  that  clause  of  it  which  said  that  neither  the  United  States 
or  Great  Britain  would  in  all  future  time,  annex,  colonize,  or  exercise  dominion 
over  any  portion  of  Central  America.  I was  asked  what  I wanted  with  Cen- 


16 


tral  America  tlien.  I replied  that  we  did  not  want  it  then,  but  that  the  time 
might  come  when  we  would  want  it.  I was  told  that  it  was  so  far  oft’  that  we 
could  never  desire  it.  My  answer  was  that  it  was  a good  ways  off,  about  half 
way  to  California,  and  on  the  direct  route  to  it;  and  if  California  was  not  too 
far  off  for  us,  I did  not  see,  how  the  half-way  house  could  be  too  remote  for 
our  wishes  and  desires. 

The  time  may  come  when  we  shall  be  compelled  for  the  sake  of  our  own  in- 
terests, and  for  that  of  humanity,  commerce  and  stable  government,  to  annex 
Province  after  Province  of  Mexico,  and  to  take  Cuba  too,  and  to  expand  indefi- 
nitely, yet  steadily  and  slowly,  acquiring  territory  as  we  Americanize  it  and 
need  it,  until  this  nation  shall  become  one  ocean-bound  Republic.  It  may  not 
be  in  your  lifetime  nor  in  mine;  it  may  not  be  in  the  lifetime  of  our  children; 
but  I trust  that  the  saying  applied  to  other  countries  is  true  of  ours,  that  the 
nation  never  dies.  I trust  the  American  nation  will  survive  forever.  If  it  does, 
it  must  expand,  for  to  increase,  multiply,  and  grow,  is  the  constitutional  law  of 
our  existence.  Hence,  let  us  pursue  a foreign  policy  by  which  we  will  have 
control  of  our  own  actions  at  all  times  with  reference  to  the  American  conti- 
nent, and  which  will  leave  us  free  when  the  time  comes  to  do  that  which  we, 
or  our  children,  as  the  case  may  be,  may  determine  that  onr  interest  and 
safety  require  us  to  do.  But  that  foreign  policy  must  be  accompanied  with  a 
domestic  policy,  which  preserves  the  rights  and  sovereignty  of  tne  States,  and 
protects  each  State  in  the  right  to  decide  its  institutions  for  itself,  and  hence 
avoids  any  jar  or  collision  when  new  States  are  admitted  into  the  brotherhood. 
With  this  domestic  policy  there  can  be  no  occasion  for  strife  between  the  free 
and  slave  States. 

My  friends  i have  given  you  an  epitome  of  the  principles  which  I discussed 
in  Illinois  in  the  late  contest  with  the  Abolitionists  and  their  allies,  1 appealed  to 
the  people  of  Blinois  by  their  love  for  the  American  Union,  to  preserve  sacred 
the  fraternal  feeling  between  the  old  and  the  new,  the  free  and  slave  States; 
I pointed  them  to  Bunker  hill,  to  Bennington,  to  Saratoga  and  to  Monmouth; 
I pointed  them  to  King’s  Mountain,  Guilford  Court  Honse,  and  to  Yorktown;  I 
showed  them  that  in  the  Revolution,  northern  and  southern  men  stood  shoulder 
to  shoulder  in  a common  cause,  fought  under  the  same  banner,  poured  out  their 
blood  in  common  streams,  and  shared  common  graves  to  secure  the  liberty  which 
we  now  enjoy.  Why  cannot  northern  and  southern  men  live  under  this  Con- 
stitution in  the  same  spirit  in  which  our  fathers  framed  it.  We  can  if  we  will 
observe  between  the  different  States,  that  good  old  rule  which  our  mother’s 
taught  us — mat  goiueu  rule  which  every  good  mother  teaches  her  son  when  he 
goes  abroad,  my  son  remember  to  mind  your  own  business  and  leave  your  neigh- 
bor's alone.  That  advice  is  asapplicable  toStates,  Territories,  and  communities, 
as  it  is  to  individuals. 

My  friends,  it  has  been  my  duty  during  the  summer  to  talk  more  than  was 
consistent  with  my  strength  or  agreeable  with  my  feelings.  I had  determined 
that  I would  proceed  quietly  to  the  Capital,  without  makng  any  more  speeches, 
but  when  I found  my  fellow-citizens  of  Maryland,  of  this  great  city  of  Balti- 
more, sympathising  with  the  people  of  the  North  in  behalf  of  sound  constitu- 
tional principles,  I could  not  refrain  from  stopping  and  exchanging  sentiments, 
in  order  to  see  if  we  did  not  advocate  the  same  principles  and  entertain  the 
same  patriotic  regard  for  the  Constitution  under  which  we  live.  I believe  that 
if  these  principles  are  firmly  adhered  to  and  faithfully  carried  out,  this  glorious 
Union  can  exist  forever-,  divided  into  free  and  slave  States,  as  our  fathers  made 
it,  each  State  retaining  the  right  to  have  just  such  laws  and  institutions  as  it 
may  choose,  and  to  modify  and  change  them  as  it  may^  see  proper.  I renew  to 
you  my  grateful  acknowledgments  for  the  kind  and  respectful  manner  in  which 
you  have  listened  to  me,  and  beg  to  bid  you  good  night 


OBSE.RVAA.TIOlSrS 


OS 

SENATOR  DOUGLAS’S 


VXES73  OS 


POPULAR  SOVEREIGNTY, 


AS  EXPRESSED  IS 


HARPERS’  MAGAZINE,  FOR  SEPTEMBER,  1859. 


# 


WASHINGTON  : 

THOMAS  McGILL,  PEINTES- 

1859. 


PREFATORY -NOTE. 


The  writer  of  these  “ Observations”  waited  a few  days  after  the  appearance  of 
Harpers’  Magazine  for  September,  in  the  confident  expectation  that  somebodj', 
with  more  leisure  and  greater  ability,  would  fully  express  the  almost  universal  dis- 
sent of  the  public  mind  from  the  views  contained  in  Mr.  Douglas’s  article.  He 
yielded  to  “the  request  of  friends”  only  when  he  saw  what  he  supposed  to  be  a 
general  wish  for  a discussion  more  extended  than  could  be  given  of  such  a subject 
in  newspaper  paragraphs.  Why  not  put  the  writer’s  name  to  it?  Because  the 
truth  or  falsehood  of  what  is  written  does  not  depend  on  the  name  or  character  of 
him  who  wrote  it.  lio  libellum  ! Let  it  go  forth,  and  find  what  entertainment  it 
can. 

Washington,  Sept.  7,  1859. 


OBSERVATIONS. 


Every  one  knows  that  Mr.  Douglas,  the  Senator  from  Illinois, 
has  written  and  printed  an  elaborate  essay,  comprising  thirty-eight 
columns  of  Harpers’  Magazine,  in  which  he  has  undertaken  to  point 
out  the  “ dividing  line  between  federal  and  local  authority.”  Very 
many  persons  have  glanced  over  its  paragraphs  to  catch  the  leading 
ideas  without  loss  of  time,  and  some  few  have  probably  read  it  with  care. 

Those  who  dissent  from  the  doctrines  of  this  paper  owe  to  its 
author,  if  not  to  his  arguments,  a most  respectful  answer.  Mr. 
Douglas  is  not  the  man  to  be  treated  with  a disdainful  silence.  His 
ability  is  a fact  unquestioned ; his  public  career,  in  the  face  of  many 
disadvantages,  has  been  uncommonly  successful;  and  he  has  been 
for  many  years  a working,  struggling  candidate  for  the  Presidency. 
He  is,  moreover,  the  Corypheus  of  his  political  sect — the  founder 
of  a new  school — and  his  disciples  naturally  believe  in  the  infallible 
verity  of  his  words  as  a part  of  their  faith. 

The  style  of  the  article  is,  in  some  respects,  highly  commendable. 
It  is  entirely  free  from  the  vulgar  clap-trap  of  the  stump,  and  has  no 
vain  adornment  of  classical  scholarship.  But  it  shows  no  sign  of  the 
eloquent  Senator  ; it  is  even  without  the  logic  of  the  great  debater. 
Many  portions  of  it  are  very  obscure.  It  seems  to  be  an  unsuccess- 
ful effort  at  legal  precision;  like  the  writing  of  a judge,  who  is  trying 
in  vain  to  give  good  reasons  for  a wrong  decision  on  a question  of 
law  which  he  has  not  quite  mastered. 

VvTith  the  help  of  Messrs.  Seward  and  Lincoln,  he  has  defined 
accurately  enough  the  platform  of  the  so-called  Republican  party  ; 
and  he  does  not  attempt  to  conceal  his  conviction  that  their  doc- 
trines are,  in  the  last  degree,  dangerous.  They  are,  most  assuredly, 
full  of  evil  and  saturated  with  mischief.  The  “irrepressible  con- 
flict” which  they  speak  of  with  so  much  pleasure  between  the  “ op- 
posing and  enduring  forces”  of  the  Northern  and  Southern  States, 
will  be  fatal,  not  merely  to  the  peace  of  the  country,  but  to  the  ex- 
istence of  the  Government  itself.  Mr.  Douglas  knows  this,  and  he 
knows,  also,  that  the  Democratic  party  is  the  only  power  which  is,  or 
can  be,  organized  to  resist  the  Republican  forces  or  oppose  their 
hostile  march  upon  the  capital.  He  who  divides  and  weakens  the 
friends  of  the  country  at  such  a crisis  in  her  fortunes,  assumes  a 
very  grave  responsibility. 

Mr.  Douglas  separates  the  Democratic  party  into  three  classes, 
and  describes  them  as  follows  : 

“First.  Those  ■who  believe  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  neither 
establishes  nor  prohibits  slavery  in  the  States  or  Territories  beyond  the  power  of 
the  people  legally  to  control  it,  but  ‘ leaves  the  people  thereof  perfectly  free  to  form 
and  regulate  their  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States.’ 


4 


“ Second.  Those  who  believe  that  the  Constitution  establishes  slavery  in  the  Ter- 
ritories, and  withholds  from  Congress  and  the  Territorial  Legislature  the  power  to 
control  it,  and  who  insist  that,  in  the  event  the  Territorial  Legislature  fails  to  enact 
the  requisite  laws  for  its  protection,  it  becomes  the  imperative  duty  of  Congress  to 
interpose  its  authority  and  furnish  such  protection. 

Third.  Those  who,  while  professing  to  believe  that  the  Constitution  establishes 
slavery  in  the  Territories  beyond  the  power  of  Congress  or  the  Territorial  Legisla- 
ture to  control  it,  at  the  same  time  protest  against  the  duty  of  Congress  to  inter- 
fere for  its  protection;  but  insist  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  judiciary  to  protect  and 
maintain  slavery  in  the  Territories  without  any  law  upon  the  subject.” 

We  give  Mr.  Douglas  the  full  benefit  of  his  own  statement.  This 
is  his  mode  of  expressing  those  differences,  which,  he  says,  disturb 
the  harmony,  and  threaten  the  integrity,  of  the  American  Democracy. 
These  passages  should,  therefore,  be  most  carefully  considered. 

The  first  class  is  the  one  to  which  he  himself  belongs,  and  to  both 
the  others  he  is  equally  opposed.  He  has  no  right  to  come  between 
the  second  and  third  class.  If  the  difference  which  he  speaks  of 
does  exist  among  his  opponents,  it  is  their  business,  not  his,  to  settle 
it  or  fight  it  out.  We  shall  therefore  confine  ourselves  to  the  dis- 
pute between  Mr.  Douglas  and  his  followers  on  the  one  hand,  and 
the  rest  of  the  Democratic  party  on  the  other,  presuming  that  he 
will  be  willing  to  observe  the  principle  of  non-intervention  in  all 
matters  with  which  he  has  no  concern. 

We  will  invert  the  order  in  which  he  has  discussed  the  subject, 
and  endeavor  to  show — 

1.  That  he  has  not  correctly  stated  the  doctrine  held  by  his  op- 
ponents ; and, 

2.  That  his  own  opinions,  as  given  by  himself,  are  altogether 
unsound. 

I.  He  says  that  a certain  portion  of  the  Democratic  party  believe, 
or  profess  to  believe,  that  the  Constitution  establishes  slavery  in  the 
Territories,  and  insist  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  judiciary  to  main- 
tain it  there  without  any  laiv  on  the  subject.  We  do  not  charge  him 
with  any  intention  to  be  unfair : but  we  assert,  that  he  has  in  fact  done 
wrong  to,  probably,  nineteen-twentiethg  of  the  party,  by  attempting 
to  put  them  on  grounds  which  they  never  chose  for  themselves. 

The  Constitution  certainly  does  not  establish  slavery  in  the  Ter- 
ritories, nor  anywhere  else.  Nobody  in  this  country  ever  thought 
or  said  so.  But  the  Constitution  regards  as  sacred  and  inviolable 
all  the  rights  which  a citizen  may  legally  acquire  in  a State.  If  a 
man  acquires  property  of  any  kind  in  a State,  and  goes  with  it 
into  a Territory,  he  is  not  for  that  reason  to  be  stripped  of  it.  Our 
simple  and  plain  proposition  is,  that  the  legal  owner  of  a slave  or 
other  chattel  may  go  with  it  into  a Federal  Territory  without  for- 
feiting his  title. 

Who  denies  the  truth  of  this,  and  upon  what  ground  can  it  be 
controverted  ? The  reasons  which  support  it  are  very  obvious  and 
very  conclusive.  As  a jurist  and  a statesman,  Mr.  Douglas  ought  to 
be  familiar  with  them,  and  there  was  a time  when  he  was  supposed 
to  understand  t hem  very  well.  We  will  briefly  give  him  a few  of  them. 

1.  It  is  an  axiomatic  principle  of  public  law,  that  a right  of 


5 


property,  a private  relation,  condition  or  status,  lawfully  existing 
in  one  State  or  country,  is  not  changed  by  the  mere  removal  of  the 
parties  to  another  country,  unless  the  law  of  that  other  country 
be  in  direct  conflict  with  it.  For  instance:  A marriage  legally 
solemnized  in  France  is  binding  in  America;  children  born  in  Ger- 
many are  legitimate  here  if  they  are  legitimate  there  ; and  a mer- 
chant who  buys  goods  in  New  York  according  to  the  laws  of  that 
State  may  carry  them  to  Illinois  and  hold  them  there  under  his 
contract.  It  is  precisely  so  with  the  statics  of  a negro  carried  from 
one  part  of  the  United  States  to  another ; — the  question  of  his 
freedom  nr  servitude  depends  on  the  law  of  the  place  where  he 
came  from,  and  depends  on  that  alone,  if  there  be  no  conflicting 
law  at  the  place  to  which  he  goes  or  is  taken.  The  Federal  Con- 
stitution therefore  recognizes  slavery  as  a legal  condition  wherever 
the  local  governments  have  chosen  to  let  it  stand  unabolished,  and 
regards  it  as  illegal  wherever  the  laws  of  the  place  have  forbidden 
it.  A slave  being  property  in  Virginia,  remains  property;  and  his 
master  has  all  the  rights  of  a Yirginia  master  wherever  he  may  go, 
so  that  he  go  not  to  any  place  where  the  local  law  comes  in  conflict 
with  his  right.  It  will  not  be  pretended  that  the  Constitution  itself 
furnishes  to  the  Territories  a conflicting  law.  It  contains  no  pro- 
vision that  can  be  tortured  into  any  semblance  of  a prohibition. 

2.  The  dispute  on  the  question  whether  slavery  or  freedom  is 
local  or  general,  is  a mere  war  of  words.  The  black  race  in  this 
country  is  neither  bond  nor  free  by  virtue  of  any  general  law.  That 
portion  of  it  which  is  free  is  free  by  virtue  of  some  local  regula- 
tion, and  the  slave  owes  service  for  a similar  reason.  The  Consti- 
tution and  laws  of  the  United  States  simply  declare  that  everything 
done  in  the  premises  by  the  State  governments  is  right,  and  they 
shall  be  protected  in  carrying  it  out.  But  free  negroes  and  slaves 
may  both  find  themselves  outside  of  any  State  jurisdiction,  and  in 
a Territory  where  no  regulation  has  yet  been  made  on  the  subject. 
There  the  Constitution  is  equally  impartial.  It  neither  frees  the 
slave  nor  enslaves  the  freeman.  It  requires  both  to  remain  in  statu 
quo  until  the  statics  already  impressed  upon  them  by  the  law  of  their 
previous  domicil  shall  be  changed  by  some  competent  local  author- 
ity. What  is  competent  local  authority  in  a Territory  will  be  else- 
where considered. 

3.  The  Federal  Constitution  carefully  guards  the  rights  of  pri- 
vate property  against  the  Federal  Government  itself,  by  declaring 
that  it  shall  not  be  taken  for  public  use  without  compensation,  nor 
without  due  process  of  law.  Slaves  are  private  property,  and  every 
man  who  has  taken  an  oath  of  fidelity  to  the  Constitution  is  reli- 
giously, morally,  and  politically  bound  to  regard  them  as  such. 
Does  anybody  suppose  that  a Constitution  which  acknowledges  the 
sacredness  of  private  property  so  fully  would  wantonly  destroy 
that  right,  not  by  any  words  that  are  found  in  it,  but  by  mere  im- 
plication from  its  general  principles  ? It  might  as  well  be  asserted 
that  the  general  principles  of  the  Constitution  gave  Lane  and  Mont- 
gomery a license  to  steal  horses  in  the  valley  of  the  Osage. 


6 


4.  The  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  has  decided  the 
question.  After  solemn  argument  and  careful  consideration,  that 
august  tribunal  has  announced  its  opinion  to  be  that  a slaveholder, 
by  going  into  a Federal  Territory,  does  not  lose  the  title  he  had  to 
his  negro  in  the  State  from  which  he  came.  In  former  times,  a 
question  of  constitutional  law  once  decided  by  the  Supreme  Court 
was  regarded  as  settled  by  all,  except  that  little  band  of  ribald  infi- 
dels, who  meet  periodically  at  Boston  to  blaspheme  the  religion,  and 
plot  rebellion  against  the  laws,  of  the  country.  The  leaders  of  the 
so-called  Republican  party  have  lately  been  treading  close  on  the 
heels  of  their  abolition  brethren ; but  it  is  devoutly  to  be  hoped 
that  Mr.  Douglas  has  no  intention  to  follow  their  example.  In  case 
hens  elected  President,  he  must  see  the  laws  faithfully  executed. 
Does  he  think  he  can  keep  that  oath  by  fighting  the  judiciary  ? 

5.  The  legislative  history  of  the  country  shows  that  all  the  great 
statesmen  of  former  times  entertained  the  same  opinion,  and  held  it 
so  firmly  that  they  did  not  even  think  of  any  other.  It  was  uni- 
versally taken  for  granted  that  a slave  remained  a slave,  and  a free- 
man a freeman,  in  the  new  Territories,  until  a change  was  made  in 
their  condition  by  some  positive  enactment.  Nobody  believed  that 
a slave  might  not  have  been  taken  to  and  kept  in  the  Northwest 
Territory  if  the  ordinance  of  1787  or  some  other  regulation  had 
not  been  made  to  prohibit  it.  The  Missouri  restriction  of  1820 
was  imposed  solely  because  it  W'as  understood  (probably  by  every 
member  of  that  Congress)  that,  in  the  absence  of  a restriction,  slave 
property  would  be  as  lawful  in  the  eye  of  the  Constitution  above 
36°  30',  as  below ; and  all  agreed,  that  the  mere  absence  of  a re- 
striction did,  in  fact,  make  it  lawful  below  the  compromise  line. 

6.  It  is  right  to  learn  wisdom  from  our  enemies.  The  Republi- 
cans do  not  point  to  any  express  provision  of  the  Constitution,  nor 
to  any  general  principle  embraced  in  it,  nor  to  any  established  rule 
of  law,  which  sustains  their  views.  The  ablest  men  among  them 
are  driven  by  stress  of  necessity  to  hunt  for  arguments  in  a code 
unrevealed,  unwritten,  and  undefined,  which  they  put  above  the 
Constitution  or  the  Bible,  and  call  it  “higher  law.”  The  ultra 
abolitionists  of  New  England  do  not  deny  that  the  Constitution  is 
rightly  interpreted  by  the  Democrats,  as  not  interfering  against 
slavery  in  the  Territories ; but  they  disdain  to  obey  what  they  pro 
nounce  to  be  “an  agreement  with  death  and  a covenant  with  hell.” 

7.  What  did  Mr.  Douglas  mean  when  he  proposed  and  voted  for 
the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  repealing  the  Missouri  restriction  ? Did 
he  intend  to  tell  southern  men  that  notwithstanding  the  repeal  of 
the  prohibition,  they  were  excluded  from  those  Territories  as  much 
as  ever  ? Or  did  he  not  regard  the  right  of  a master  to  his  slave 
perfectly  good  whenever  he  got  rid  of  the  prohibition  ? Did  he, 
or  anybody  else  at  that  time,  dream  that  it  was  necessary  to  make 
a positive  law  in  favor  of  the  slaveholder  before  he  could  go  there 
with  safety  ? To  ask  these  questions  is  to  answer  them  ? The 
Kansas-Nebraska  bill  was  not  meant  as  a delusion  or  a snare.  It 


was  well  understood  that  the  repeal  alone  of  the  restriction  against 
slavery  would  throw  the  country  open  to  everything  which  the  Con- 
stitution recognized  as  property. 

Yv7 e have  thus  given  what  we  believe  to  be  the  opinions  held  by 
the  great  body  of  the  Democratic  party  : namely,  that  the  Federal 
Constitution  does  not  establish  slavery  anywhere  in  the  Union ; that 
it  permits  a black  man  to  be  either  held  in  servitude  or  made  free  as 
the  local  law  shall  decide  ; and  that  in  a Territory  where  no  local 
law  on  the  subject  has  been  enacted,  it  keeps  both  the  slave  and 
the  free  negro  in  the  status  already  impressed  upon  them,  until  it 
shall  be  changed  by  competent  local  authority.  We  have  seen,  that 
this  is  sustained  by  the  reason  of  the  thing,  by  a great  principle  of 
public  law,  by  the  words  of  the  Constitution,  by  a solemn  deci- 
sion of  the  Supreme  Court,  by  the  whole  course  of  our  legislation, 
by  the  concession  of  our  political  opponents,  and,  finally,  by  the 
most  important  act  in  the  public  life  of  Mr.  Douglas  himself. 

Mr.  Douglas  imputes  another  absurdity  to  his  opponents  when  he 
charges  them  with  insisting  “that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  judiciary  to 
protect  and  maintain  slavery  in  the  Territories  without  any  law 
upon  the  subject.”  The  judge  who  acts  without  law  acts  against 
law  ; and  surely  no  sentiment  so  atrocious  as  this  was  ever  enter- 
tained by  any  portion  of  the  Democratic  party.  The  right  of  a 
master  to  the  services  of  his  slave  in  a Territory  is  not  against  law 
nor  without  law,  but  in  full  accordance  with  law.  If  the  law  be 
against  it  we  are  all  against  it.  Has  not  the  emigrant  to  Nebraska 
a legal  right  to  the  ox  team,  which  he  bought  in  Ohio,  to  haul  him 
over  the  plains  ? Is  not  his  title  as  good  to  it  in  the  Territory, 
as  it  was  in  the  State  where  he  got  it  ? And  what  should  be  said 
of  a judge  who  tells  him  that  he  is  not  protected,  or  that  he  is  main- 
tained, in  the  possession  of  his  property  “ without  any  law  upon  the 
subject  ?” 

II.  We  had  a right  to  expect  from  Mr.  Douglas  at  least  a clear 
and  intelligible  definition  of  his  own  doctrine.  We  are  disappointed. 
It  is  hardly  possible  to  conceive  anything  more  difficult  to  compre- 
hend. We  will  transcribe  it  again,  and  do  what  can  be  done  to 
analyze  it. 

“Those  who  believe  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  neither  establishes 
nor  prohibits  slavery  in  the  States  or  Territories  beyond  the  power  of  the  peopl° 
legally  to  control  it,  but  1 leaves  the  people  thereof  perfectly  free  to  form  and  reg- 
ulate their  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States.’  ” 

The  Constitution  neither  establishes  nor  prohibits  slavery  in  the 
States  or  Territories.  If  it  be  meant  by  this  that  the  Constitution 
does  not,  proprio  vigore , either  emancipate  any  man’s  slave,  or  create 
the  condition  of  slavery,  and  impose  it  on  free  negroes,  but  leaves 
the  question  of  every  black  man’s  status , in  the  Territories  as  well  as 
in  the  States,  to  be  determined  by  the  local  law,  then  we  admit  it,  for 
it  is  the  very  same  proposition  which  we  have  been  trying  to  prove. 
But  if,  on  the  contrary,  it  is  to  be  understood  as  an  assertion  that 


8 


the  Constitution  floes  not  permit  a master  to  keep  his  slave,  or 
a free  negro  to  have  his  liberty,  in  all  parts  of  the  Union  where  the 
local  law  does  not  interfere  to  prevent  it,  then  the  error  is  not  only 
a very  grave  one,  but  it  is  also  absurd  and  self-contradictory. 

The  Constitution  neither  establishes  nor  'prohibits  slavery  in  the 
States  or  Territories  beyond  the  power  of  the  people  legally  to  con- 
trol it.  This  is  sailing  to  Point-No-Point  again.  Of  course  a sub- 
ject, which  is  legally  controlled,  cannot  be  beyond  the  power  that 
controls  it.  But  the  question  is,  what  constitutes  legal  control,  and 
when  the  people  of  a State  or  Territory  are  in  a condition  to  ex- 
ercise it. 

The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  * * * * leaves  the 

people  perfectly  free,  * * * and  subject  only  to  the  Constitu- 

tion of  the  United  States.  This  carries  us  round  a full  circle,  and 
drops  us  precisely  at  the  place  of  beginning.  That  the  Constitu- 
tion leaves  everybody  subject  to  the  Constitution,  is  most  true.  We 
are  far  from  denying  it.  We  never  heard  it  doubted,  and  expect 
we  never  will.  But  the  statement  of  it  proves  nothing,  defines 
nothing,  and  explains  nothing.  It  merely  darkens  the  subject,  as 
words  without  meaning  always  do. 

But  notwithstanding  all  this  circuity  of  expression  and  conse- 
quent opaqueness  of  meaning  in  the  magazine  article  of  Mr.  Douglas, 
we  think  we  can  guess  what  his  opinions  are  or  will  be  rvhen  he 
comes  to  reconsider  the  subject.  He  will  admit  (at  least  he  will 
not  undertake  to  deny)  that  the  status  of  a negro,  whether  of  ser- 
vitude or  freedom,  accompanies  him  wherever  he  goes,  and  adheres 
to  him  in  every  part  of  the  Union  until  he  meets  some  local  law 
which  changes  it. 

It  will  also  be  agreed  that  the  people  of  a State,  through  their 
Legislature,  and  the  people  of  a Territory,  in  the  constitution  which 
they  may  frame  preparatory  to  their  admission  as  a State,  can  reg- 
ulate and  control  the  condition  of  the  subject  black  race  within 
their  respective  jurisdictions,  so  as  to  make  them  bond  or  free. 

But  here  we  come  to  the  point  at  which  opinions  diverge.  Some 
insist  that  no  citizen  can  be  deprived  of  his  property  in  slaves,  or 
in  anything  else,  except  by  the  provision  of  a State  constitution  or 
by  the  act  of  a State  Legislature ; while  others  contend  that  an 
unlimited  control  over  private  rights  may  be  exercised  by  a Terri- 
torial Legislature  as  soon  as  the  earliest  settlements  are  made. 

So  strong  are  the  sentiments  of  Mr.  Douglas  in  favor  of  the 
latter  doctrine,  that  if  it  be  not  established  he  threatens  us  with 
Mr.  Seward’s  “irrepressible  conflict,”  which  shall  end  only  with 
the  universal  Abolition  or  the  universal  dominion  of  slavery.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  President,  the  Judges  of  the  Supreme  Court, 
nearly  all  the  Democratic  members  of  Congress,  the  whole  of  the 
party  South,  and  a very  large  majority  North,  are  penetrated  with 
a conviction,  that  no  such  power  is  vested  in  a Territorial  Legis- 
lature, and  that  those  who  desire  to  confiscate  private  property 
of  any  kind  must  wait  until  they  get  a constitutional  convention 


9 


or  the  machinery  of  a State  government  into  their  hands.  We 
venture  to  give  the  following  reasons  for  believing  that  Mr.  Douglas 
is  in  error  : 

The  Supreme  Court  has  decided  that  a Territorial  Legislature 
has  not  the  power  which  he  claims  for  it.  That  alone  ought  to 
be  sufficient.  There  can  be  no  law,  order,  or  security  for  any 
man's  rights,  unless  the  judicial  authority  of  the  country  be  up- 
held. Mr.  Douglas  may  do  what  he  pleases  with  political  con- 
ventions and  party  platforms,  but  we  trust  he  will  give  to  the  Su- 
preme Court  at  least  that  decent  respect,  which  none  but  the  most 
ultra  Republicans  have  yet  withheld. 

The  right  of  property  is  sacred,  and  the  first  object  of  all  human 
government  is  to  make  it  secure.  Life  is  always  unsafe  where  prop- 
erty is  not  fully  protected.  This  is  the  experience  of  every  people 
on  earth,  ancient  and  modern.  To  secure  private  property  was  a 
principal  object  of  Magna  Charta.  Charles  I.  afterwards  attempted 
to  violate  it,  but  the  people  rose  upon  him,  dragged  him  to  the 
block,  and  severed  his  head  from  his  body.  At  a still  later  period 
another  monarch  for  a kindred  offence  was  driven  out  of  the  coun- 
try, and  died  a fugitive  and  an  outcast.  Our  own  Revolution  was 
provoked  by  that  slight  invasion  upon  the  right  of  property  which 
consisted  in  the  exaction  of  a trifling  tax.  There  is  no  government 
in  the  world,  however  absolute,  which  would  not  be  disgraced  and 
endangered  by  wantonly  sacrificing  private  property  even  to  a small 
extent.  For  centuries  past  such  outrages  have  ceased  to  be  com- 
mitted in  times  of  peace  among  civilized  nations. 

Slaves  are  regarded  as  property  in  the  Southern  States.  The 
people  of  that  section  buy  and  sell,  and  carry  on  all  their  business, 
provide  for  their  families,  and  make  their  wills  and  divide  their  in- 
heritances on  that  assumption.  It  is  manifest  to  all  who  know  them, 
that  no  doubts  ever  cross  their  minds  about  the  rightfulness  of  hold- 
ing such  property.  They  believe  they  have  a direct  warrant  for  it, 
not  only  in  the  examples  of  the  best  men  that  ever  lived,  but  in  the 
precepts  of  Divine  Revelation  itself;  and  they  are  thoroughly  satis- 
fied that  the  relation  of  master  and  slave  is  the  only  one  which  can 
possibly  exist  there  between  the  white  and  the  black  race  without 
ruining  both.  The  people  of  the  North  may  differ  from  their  fellow- 
citizens  of  the  South  on  the  whole  subject,  but  knowing,  as  we  all 
do,  that  these  sentiments  are  sincerely  and  honestly  entertained,  we 
cannot  wonder  that  they  feel  the  most  unspeakable  indignation  when 
any  attempt  is  made  to  interfere  with  their  rights.  This  sentiment 
results  naturally  and  necessarily  from  their  education  and  habits  of 
thinking.  They  cannot  help  it,  any  more  than  an  honest  man  in 
the  North  can  avoid  abhorring  a thief  or  housebreaker. 

The  jurists,  legislators,  and  people  of  the  Northern  States,  have 
always  sacredly  respected  the  right  of  property  in  slaves  held  by 
their  own  citizens  within  their  own  jurisdiction.  It  is  a remark- 
able fact,  very  well  worth  noticing,  that  no  Northern  State  ever 
passed  any  law  to  take  a negro  from  his  master.  All  laws  for  the 


10 


abolition  of  slavery  have  operated  only  on  the  unborn  descendants 
of  the  negro  race,  and  the  vested  rights  of  masters  have  not  been 
disturbed  in  the  North  more  than  in  the  South. 

In  every  nation  under  heaven,  civilized,  semi-barbarous,  or  savage, 
where  slavery  has  existed  in  any  form  at  all  analogous  to  ours,  the 
rights  of  the  masters  to  the  control  of  their  slaves  as  property  have 
been  respected ; and  on  no  occasion  has  any  government  struck  at 
those  rights,  except  as  it  would  strike  at  other  property.  Even  the 
British  Parliament,  when  it  emancipated  the  West  India  slaves, 
though  it  was  legislating  for  a people  three  thousand  miles  away, 
and  not  represented,  never  denied  either  the  legal  or  the  natural 
right  of  the  slave  owner.  Slaves  were  admitted  to  be  property, 
and  the  Government  acknowledged  it  by  paying  their  masters  one 
hundred  millions  of  dollars  for  the  privilege  of  setting  them  free. 

Here,  then,  is  a species  of  property  which  is  of  transcendent  im- 
portance to  the  material  interests  of  the  South — which  the  people 
of  that  region  think  it  right  and  meritorious  in  the  eyes  of  God 
and  good  men  to  hold — which  is  sanctioned  by  the  general  sense  of 
all  mankind  among  whom  it  has  existed — which  was  legal  only  a 
short  time  ago  in  all  the  States  of  the  Union,  and  was  then  treated 
as  sacred  by  every  one  of  them — which  is  guaranteed  to  the  owner 
as  much  as  any  other  property  is  guaranteed  by  the  Constitution  ; — 
and  Mr.  Douglas  thinks  that  a Territorial  Legislature  is  competent 
to  take  it  away.  We  say,  No;  the  supreme  legislative  power  of  a 
sovereign  State  alone  can  deprive  a man  of  his  property. 

This  proposition  is  so  plain,  so  well  established,  and  so  univer- 
sally acknowledged,  that  any  argument  in  its  favor  would  be  a mere 
waste  of  words.  Mr.  Douglas  does  not  deny  it,  and  it  did  not  re- 
quire the  thousandth  part  of  his  sagacity  to  see  that  it  was  undeni- 
able. He  claims  for  the  Territorial  governments  the  right  of  con- 
fiscating private  property  on  the  ground  that  those  governments  are 
sovereign — have  an  uncontrollable  and  independent  power  over  all 
their  internal  affairs.  That  is  the  point  which  he  thinks  is  to  split 
the  Democracy  and  impale  the  nation.  But  it  is  so  entirely  erro- 
neous, that  it  must  vanish  into  thin  air  as  soon  as  it  comes  to  be 
examined. 

A Territorial  government  is  merely  provisional  and  temporary. 
It  is  created  by  Congress  for  the  necessary  perservation  of  order  and 
the  purposes  of  police.  The  powers  conferred  upon  it  are  ex- 
pressed in  the  organic  act,  which  is  the  charter  of  its  existence, 
and  which  may  be  changed  or  repealed  at  the  pleasure  of  Con- 
gress. In  most  of  those  acts  the  power  has  been  expressly  re- 
served to  Congress  of  revising  the  Territorial  laws,-  and  the  power 
to  repeal  them  exists  without  such  reservation.  This  was  asserted  in 
the  case  of  Kansas  by  the  most  distinguished  Senators  in  the  Con- 
gress of  1856.  The  President  appoints  the  Governor,  judges,  and 
all  other  officers  whose  appointment  is  not  otherwise  provided  for, 
directly  or  indirectly,  by  Congress.  Even  the  expenses  of  the  Ter- 
ritorial government  are  paid  out  of  the  Federal  treasury.  The  truth 


11 


is,  they  have  no  attribute  of  sovereignty  about  them.  The  essence 
of  sovereignty  consists  in  having  no  superior.  But  a Territorial 
government  has  a superior  in  the  United  States  Government,  upon 
■whose  pleasure  it  is  dependent  for  its  very  existence — in  whom  it  lives, 
and  moves,  and  has  its  being — who  has  made,  and  can  unmake  it  with 
a breath. 

Where  does  this  sovereign  authority  to  deprive  men  of  their  prop- 
erty come  from  ? This  transcendent  power,  which  even  despots  are 
cautious  about  using,  and  which  a constitutional  monarch  never  ex- 
ercises— how  does  it  get  into  a Territorial  Legislature  ? Surely  it 
does  not  drop  from  the  clouds : it  will  not  be  contended,  that  it 
accompanies  the  settlers,  or  exists  in  the  Territory  before  its  organ- 
ization. Indeed  it  is  not  to  the  people,  but  to  the  government  of  a 
Territory,  that  Mr.  Douglas  says  it  belongs.  Then  Congress  must 
give  the  power  at  the  same  time  that  it  gives  the  Territorial  gov- 
ernment. But  not  a word  of  the  kind  is  to  be  found  m any  organic 
act  that  ever  was  framed.  It  is  thus  that  Mr.  Douglas’s  argument 
runs  itself  out  into  nothing. 

But  if  Congress  would  pass  a statute  expressly  to  give  this  sort 
of  power  to  the  Territorial  governments,  they  still  would  not  have 
it ; for  the  Federal  Government  itself  does  not  possess  any  control 
over  men’s  property  in  the  Territories.  That  such  power  does  not 
exist  in  the  Federal  Government  needs  no  proof:  Mr.  Douglas 
admits  it  fully  and  freely.  It  is,  besides,  established  by  the  solemn 
decision  of  Congress,  by  the  assent  of  the  Executive,  and  by  the 
direct  ratification  of  the  people  acting  in  their  primary  capacity  at 
the  polls.  In  addition  to  all  this,  the  Supreme  Court  have  delib- 
erately adjudged  it  to  be  an  unalterable  and  undeniable  rule  of  con- 
stitutional law. 

This  acknowledgment  that  Congress  has  no  power,  authority,  or 
jurisdiction  over  the  subject,  literally  obliges  Mr.  Douglas  to  give  up 
his  doctrine,  or  else  to  maintain  it  by  asserting  that  a power  which 
the  Federal  Government  does  not  possess  may  be  given  by  Congress 
to  the  Territorial  government.  The  right  to  abolish  African  slavery 
in  a Territory  is  not  granted  by  the  Constitution  to  Congress ; it 
is  withheld,  and  therefore  the  same  as  if  expressly  prohibited.  Yet 
Mr.  Douglas  declares  that  Congress  may  give  it  to  the  Territories. 
Nay  ; he  goes  further,  and  says  that  the  want  of  the  powrnr  in  Con- 
gress is  the  very  reason  why  it  can  delegate  it — the  general  rule,  in  his 
opinion,  being  that  Congress  cannot  delegate  the  powers  it  possesses, 
but  may  delegate  such,  “ and  only  such,  as  Congress  cannot  exercise 
under  the  Constitution!”  By  turning  to  pages  520  and  521,  the 
reader  will  see  that  this  astounding  proposition  is  actually  made,  not 
in  jest  or  irony,  but  solemnly,  seriously,  and,  no  doubt,  in  perfect  good 
faith.  On  this  principle,  as  Congress  cannot  exercise  the  power  to 
make  an  ex  post  facto  law,  or  a law  impairing  the  obligation  of  con- 
tracts, therefore  it  may  authorize  such  laws  to  be  made  by  the  town 
councils  of  Washington  city,  or  the  levy  court  of  the  District. 
If  Congress  passes  an  act  to  hang  a man  without  trial,  it  is  void, 


12 


and  the  judges  will  not  allow  it  to  bo  executed;  but  the  power  to  do 
this  prohibited  thing  can  be  constitutionally  given  by  Congres  to  a 
Territorial  Legislature  ! 

We  admit  that  there  are  certain  powers  bestowed  upon  the  Gen- 
eral Government  which  are  in  their  nature  judicial  or  executive. 
With  them  Congress  can  do  nothing,  except  to  see  that  they  are 
executed  by  the  proper  kind  of  officers.  It  is  also  true  that  Con- 
gress has  certain  legislative  powers  which  cannot  be  delegated. 
But  Mr.  Douglas  should  have  known  that  he  was  not  talking  about 
powers  which  belonged  to  either  of  these  classes,  but  about  a legis- 
lative jurisdiction  totally  forbidden  to  the  Federal  Government, 
and  incapable  of  being  delegated,  for  the  simple  reason  that  it  does 
not  constitutionally  exist. 

Will  anybody  say  that  such  a power  ought,  as  a matter  of  policy, 
or  for  reasons  of  public  safety,  to  be  held  by  the  provisional  gov- 
ernments of  the  Territories?  Undoubtedly  no  true  patriot,  nor  no 
friend  of  justice  .and  order,  can  deliberately  reflect  on  the  probable 
consequences  without  deprecating  them. 

This  power  over  property  is  the  one  which  in  all  governments  has 
been  most  carefully  guarded,  because  the  temptation  to  abuse  it  is 
always  greater  than  any  other.  It  is  there  that  the  subjects  of  a 
limited  monarchy  watch  their  king  with  the  greatest  jealousy.  No 
republic  has  ever  failed  to  impose  strict  limitations  upon  it.  All  free 
people  know,  that  if  they  would  remain  free,  they  must  compel  the  gov- 
ernment to  keep  its  hands  off  their  private  property;  and  this  can  be 
done  only  by  tying  them  up  with  careful  restrictions.  Accordingly 
our  Federal  Constitution  declares  that  “ no  person  shall  be  deprived 
of  his  property  except  by  due  process  of  law,”  and  that  “ private 
property  shall  not  be  taken  for  public  use  without  just  compensa- 
tion.” It  is  universally  agreed  that  this  applies  only  to  the  exer- 
cise of  the  power  by  the  Government  of  the  United  States.  We  are 
also  protected  against  the  State  governments  by  a similar  provision 
in  the  State  constitutions.  Legislative  robbery  is  therefore  a crime 
which  cannot  be  committed  either  by  Congress  or  by  any  State 
Legislature,  unless  it  be  done  in  flat  rebellion  to  the  fundamental 
law  of  the  land.  But  if  the  Territorial  governments  have  this 
power,  then  they  have  it  without  any  limitation  whatsoever,  and 
in  all  the  fulness  of  absolute  despotism.  They  are  omnipotent 
in  regard  to  all  their  internal  affairs,  for  they  are  sovereigns , 
without  a constitution  to  hold,  them  in  checlc.  And  this  omnipo- 
tent sovereignty  is  to  be  wielded  by  a few  men  suddenly  drawn 
together  from  all  parts  of  America  and  Europe,  unacquainted 
with  one  another,  and  ignorant  of  their  relative  rights.  But 
if  Mr.  Douglas  is  right,  those  governments  have  all  the  abso- 
lute power  of  the  Russian  Autocrat.  They  may  take  every  kind  of 
property  in  mere  caprice,  or  for  any  purpose  of  lucre  or  malice, 
without  process  of  law,  and  without  providing  for  compensation. 
The  Legislature  of  Kansas,  sitting  at  Lecompton  or  Lawrence,  may 
order  the  miners  to  give  up  every  ounce  of  gold  that  has  been  dug 


13 


at  Pike’s  Peak.  If  the  authorities  of  Utah  should  license  a band 
of  marauders  to  despoil  the  emigrants  crossing  the  Territory,  their 
sovereign  right  to  do  so  cannot  be  questioned.  A new  Territory 
may  be  organized,  which  Southern  men  think  should  be  devoted  to 
the  culture  of  cotton,  while  the  people  of  the  North  are  equally 
certain  that  grazing  alone  is  the  proper  business  to  be  carried  on 
there.  If  one  party,  by  accident,  by  force,  or  by  fraud,  has  a ma- 
jority in  the  Legislature,  the  negroes  are  taken  from  the  planters  ; 
and  if  the  other  set  gains  a political  victory,  it  is  followed  by  a 
statute  to  plunder  the  graziers  of  their  cattle.  Such  things  cannot 
be  done  by  the  Federal  Government,  nor  by  the  governments  of 
the  States ; but,  if  Mr.  Douglas  is  not  mistaken,  they  can  be  done 
by  the  Territorial  governments.  Is  it  not  every  way  better  to 
wait  until  the  new  inhabitants  know  themselves  and  one  another  ; 
until  the  policy  of  the  Territory  is  settled  by  some  experience  ; and, 
above  all,  until  the  great  powers  of  a sovereign  State  are  regularly 
conferred  upon  them  and  properly  limited,  so  as  to  prevent  the  gross 
abuses  which  always  accompany  unrestricted  power  inhuman  hands? 

There  is  another  consideration,  which  Mr.  Douglas  should  have 
been  the  last  man  to  overlook.  The  present  Administration  of  the 
Federal  Government,  and  the  whole  Democratic  party  throughout 
the  country,  including  Mr.  Douglas,  thought  that,  in  the  case  of 
Kansas,  the  question  of  retaining  or  abolishing  slavery  should  not 
be  determined  by  any  representative  body  without  giving  to  the 
whole  mass  of  the  people  an  opportunity  of  voting  on  it.  Mr. 
Douglas  carried  it  further,  and  warmly  opposed  the  constitution, 
denying  even  its  validity,  because  other  aDd  undisputed  parts  of  it 
had  not  also  been  submitted  to  a popular  vote.  Now  he  is  willing 
that  the  whole  slavery  dispute  in  any  Territory,  and  all  questions 
that  can  arise  concerning  the  rights  of  the  people  to  that  or  other 
property,  shall  be  decided  at  once  by  a Territorial  Legislature, 
without  any  submission  at  all.  Popular  sovereignty  in  the  last 
Congress  meant  the  freedom  of  the  people  from  all  the  restraints 
of  law  and  order : now  it  means  a government  which  shall  rule 
them  with  a rod  of  iron.  It  swings  like  a pendulum  from  one  side 
clear  over  to  the  other. 

Mr.  Douglas’s  opinions  on  this  subject  of  sovereign  Territorial 
governments  are  very  singular ; but  the  reasons  he  has  produced 
to  support  them  are  infinitely  more  curious  still.  For  instance,  he 
sho*ws  that  Jefferson  once  introduced  into  the  old  Congress  of  the 
Confederation  a plan  for  the  government  of  the  Territories,  calling 
them  by  the  name  of  “New  States,”  but  not  making  them  anything 
like  sovereign  or  independent  States ; and  though  this  was  a mere 
experimental  projet , which  was  rejected  by  Congress,  and  never 
afterwards  referred  to  by  Jefferson  himself,  yet  Mr.  Douglas  argues 
upon  it  as  if  it  had  somehow  become  a part  of  our  fundamental  law. 

Again:  He  says  that  the  States  gave  to  the  Federal  Government 
the  same  powers  which  as  colonies  they  had  been  willing  to  concede 
to  the  British  Government,  and  kept  those  which  as  colonies  they 


14 


had  claimed  for  themselves.  If  he  will  read  a common-school  his- 
tory of  the  Revolution,  and  then  look  at  Art.  I,  sec.  8,  of  the  Con- 
stitution, he  will  find  the  two  following  facts  fully  established : 
1.  That  the  Federal  Government  has  “power  to  lay  and  collect 
taxes,  duties,  imposts,  and  excises;”  and,  2.  That  the  colonies,  be- 
fore the  Revolution,  utterly  refused  to  be  taxed  by  Great  Britain  ; 
and  so  far  from  conceding  the  power,  fought  against  it  for  seven 
long  years. 

There  is  another  thing  in  the  article  which,  if  it  had  not  come 
from  a distinguished  Senator,  and  a very  upright  gentleman,  would 
have  been  open  to  some  imputation  of  unfairness.  He  quotes  the 
President’s  message,  and  begins  in  the  middle  of  a sentence.  He 
professes  to  give  the  very  words,  and  makes  Mr.  Buchanan  say : 
“ That  slavery  exists  in  Kansas  by  virtue  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States.”  What  Mr.  Buchanan  didsay  was  a very  different  thing. 
Itwasihis:  “It  has  been  solemnly  adjudged  by  the  highest  judicial 
tribunal  known  to  our  laws,  that  slavery  exists  in  Kansas  by  virtue  of 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.”  Everybody  knows  that  by 
treating  the  Bible  in  that  way,  you  can  prove  the  non-existence  of 
God. 

The  argumentum  ad  hominem  is  not  fair,  and  we  do  not  mean  to 
use  it.  Mr.  Douglas  has  a right  to  change  his  opinions  whenever 
he  pleases.  But  we  quote  him  as  we  would  any  other  authority 
equally  high  in  favor  of  truth.  We  can  prove  by  himself  that 
every  proposition  he  lays  down  in  Harpers’  Magazine  is  founded 
in  error.  Never  before  has  any  public  man  in  America  so  com- 
pletely revolutionized  his  political  opinions  in  the  course  of  eighteen 
months.  We  do  not  deny  that  the  change  is  heartfelt  and  con- 
scientious. We  only  insist  that  he  formerly  stated  his  propositions 
much  more  clearly,  and  sustained  them  with  far  greater  ability  and 
better  reasons,  than  he  does  now. 

When  he  took  a tour  to  the  South,  at  the  beginning  of  last  win- 
ter, he  made  a speech  at  New  Orleans,  in  which  he  announced  to 
the  people  there  that  he  and  his  friends  in  Illinois  accepted  the 
Dred  Scott  decision,  regarded  slaves  as  property,  and  fully  admitted 
the  right  of  a Southern  man  to  go  into  any  Federal  territory  with  his 
slave,  and  to  hold  him  there  as  other  property  is  held. 

In  1849  he  voted  in  the  Senate  for  what  was  called  Walker’s 
amendment,  by  which  it  was  proposed  to  put  all  the  internal 
affairs  of  California  and  New  Mexico  under  the  domination  of  the 
President,  giving  him  almost  unlimited  power,  legislative,  judicial, 
and  executive,  over  the  internal  affairs  of  those  Territories.  (See 
20th  Cong.,  p.  .)  Undoubtedly  this  was  a strange  way  of  treat- 
ing sovereignties.  If  Mr.  Douglas  is  right  now,  he  was  guilty  then 
of  most  atrocious  usurpation. 

Utah  is  as  much  a sovereign  State  as  any  other  Territory,  and 
as  perfectly  entitled  to  enjoy  the  right  of  self-government.  On  the 
12th  of  June,  1857,  Mr.  Douglas  made  a speech  about  Utah,  at 
Springfield,  Illinois,  in  which  he  expressed  his  opinion  strongly  in 


15 


favor  of  the  absolute  and  unconditional  repeal  of  the  organic  act, 
blotting  the  Territorial  government  out  of  existence , and  putting  the 
people  under  the  sole  and  exclusive  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States, 
like  a fort,  arsenal , dock-yard,  or  magazine.  He  does  not  seem  to 
have  had  the  least  idea  then  that  he  was  proposing  to  extinguish  a 
sovereignty,  or  to  trample  upon  the  sacred  rights  of  an  independent 
people. 

The  report  which  he  made  to  the  Senate,  in  1856,  on  the  Topeka 
constitution,  enunciates  a very  different  doctrine  from  that  of  the 
magazine  article.  It  is  true  that  the  language  is  a little  cloudy, 
but  no  one  can  understand  the  following  sentences  to  signify  that 
the  Territorial  governments  have  sovereign  power  to  take  away  the 
property  of  the  inhabitants  : 

“The  sovereignty  of  a Territory  remains  in  abeyance,  suspended  in  the  United 
States,  in  trust  for  the  people  until  they  shall  be  admitted  into  the  Union  as  a Stale.  In 
the  mean  time  they  are  admitted  to  enjoy  and  exercise  all  the  rights  and  privileges 
of  self-government,  in  subordination  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  in 
obedience  to  the  ORGANIC  law  passed  by  Congress  in  pursuance  of  that  instru- 
ment. These  rights  and  privileges  are  all  derived  from  the  Constitution,  through 
the  act  of  Congress,  and  must  be  exercised  and  enjoyed  in  subjection  to  all  the  limit- 
ations and  restrictions  which  that#Constitntion  imposes.” 

The  letter  he  addressed  to  a Philadelphia  meeting,  in  February, 
1858,  is  more  explicit,  and,  barring  some  anomalous  ideas  concerning 
the  abeyance  of  the  power  and  the  suspension  of  it  in  trust , it  is 
clear  enough : 

“Under  our  Territorial  system,  it  requires  sovereign  power  to  ordain  and  estab- 
lish constitutions  and  governments.  While  a Territory  may  and  should  enjoy  all 
the  rights  of  self-government,  in  obedience  to  its  organic  law , it  is  not  a sovereign 
power.  The  sovereignty  of  a Territory  remains  in  abeyance,  suspended  in  the  United 
States,  in  trust  for  the  people  when  they  become  a State,  and  cannot  be  withdrawn  from 
the  hands  of  the  trustee  and  vested  in  the  people  of  a Territory  without  the  consent  of 
Congress 

The  report  which  he  made  in  the  same  month,  from  the  Senate 
Committee  on  Territories,  is  equally  distinct,  and  rather  more  em- 
phatic against  his  new  doctrine : 

“ This  committee  in  their  reports  have  always  held  that  a Territory  is  not  a sove- 
reign power  ; that  the  sovereignty  of  a Territory  is  in  abeyance,  suspended  in  the 
United  States,  in  trust  for  the  people  when  they  become  a State  ; that  the  United 
States,  as  trustees,  cannot  be  divested  of  the  sovereignty,  nor  the  Territory  be  in- 
vested with  the  right  to  assume  and  exercise  it,  without  the  consent  of  Congress. 
If  the  proposition  be  true  that  sovereign  power  alone  can  institute  governments,  and 
that  the  sovereignty  of  a Territory  is  in  abeyance,  suspended  in  the  United  States, 
in  trust  for  the  people  when  they  become  a State,  and  that  the  sovereignty  cannot 
be  divested  from  the  hands  of  the  trustee  without  the  assent  of  Congress,  it  follows, 
as  an  inevitable  consequence,  that  the  Kansas  Legislature  did  not  and  could  not 
confer  upon  the  Lecompton  convention  the  sovereign  power  of  ordaining  a consti- 
tution for  the  people  of  Kansas,  in  place  of  the  organic  act  passed  by  Congress.” 

The  days  are  past  and  gone  when  Mr.  Douglas  led  the  fiery  assaults  of 
the  opposition  in  the  Lecompton  controversy.  Then  it  was  his  object  to 
prove  that  a Territorial  Legislature,  so  far  from  being  omnipotent,  was 
powerless  even  to  authorize  an  election  of  delegates  to  consider  about  their 
own  affairs.  It  was  asserted  that  a convention  chosen  under  a Territorial 
law  could  make  and  ordain  no  constitution  which  would  be  legally  binding. 


16 


Then  a Territorial  government  was  to  be  despised  and  spit  upon,  even 
when  it  invited  the  people  to  come  forward  and  vote  on  a question  of  the 
most  vital  importance  to  their  own  interests.  Bat  now  all  things  have 
become  new.  The  Lecompton  dispute  has  “ gone  glimmering  down  the 
dream  of  things  that  were,”  and  Mr.  Douglas  produces  another  issue, 
brand  new  from  the  mint.  The  old  opinions  are  not  worth  a rush  to  his 
present  position  : it  must  be  sustained  by  opposite  principles  and  reasoning 
totally  different.  The  Legislature  of  Kansas  was  not  sovereign  when  it 
authorized  a convention  of  the  people  to  assemble  and  decide  what  sort  of 
a constitution  they  would  have,  but  when  it  strikes  at  their  rights  of  prop- 
erty, it  becomes  not  only  a sovereign,  but  a sovereign  without  limitation 
of  power.  We  have  no  idea  that  Mr.  Douglas  is  not  perfectly  sincere,  as 
he  was  also  when  he  took  the  other  side.  The  impulses  engendered  by 
the  heat  of  controversy  have  driven  him  at  different  times  in  opposite  di- 
rections. We  do  not  charge  it  against  him  as  a crime,  but  it  is  true  that  these 
views  of  his,  inconsistent  as  they  are  with  one  another,  always  happen  to  accord 
with  the  interests  of  the  opposition,  always  give  to  the  enemies  of  the  Con- 
stitution a certain  amount  of  “ aid  and  comfort,”  and  always  add  a little 
to  the  rancorous  and  malignant  hatred  with  which  the  Abolitionists  re- 
gard the  Government  of  their  own  country. 

Yes;  the  Lecompton  issue  which  Mr.  Douglas  made  upon  the  Adminis- 
tration two  years  ago  is  done,  and  the  principles  on  which  we  were  then 
opposed  are  abandoned.  We  are  no  longer  required  to  fight  for  the  lawful- 
ness of  a Territorial  election  held  under  Territorial  authority.  But  another 
issue  is  thrust  upon  us,  to  “ disturb  the  harmony  and  threaten  the  integ- 
rity” of  the  party.  A few  words  more,  (perhaps  of  tedious  repetition,)  by 
way  of  showing  what  that  new  issue  is,  or  probably  will  be,  and  we  are  done. 

We  insist  that  an  emigrant  going  into  a Federal  Territory,  retains  his 
title  to  the  property  which  he  took  with  him,  until  there  is  some  prohibi- 
tion enacted  by  lawful  authority.  Mr.  Douglas  cannot  deny  this  in  the 
face  of  his  New  Orleans  speech,  and  the  overwhelming  reasons  which  sup- 
port it. 

It  is  an  agreed  point  among  all  Democrats  that 'Congress  cannot  inter- 
fere with  the  rights  of  property  in  the  Territories. 

It  is  also  acknowledged  that  the  people  of  a new  State,  either  in  their 
constitution  or  in  an  act  of  their  Legislature,  may  make  the  negroes  within 
it  free,  or  hold  them  in  a state  of  servitude. 

But  we  believe  more.  We  believe  in  submitting  to  the  law,  as  decided 
by  the  Supreme  Court,  which  declares  that  a Territorial  Legislature  can- 
not, any  more  than  Congress,  interfere  with  rights  of  property  in  a Terri- 
tory— that  the  settlers  of  a Territory  are  bound  to  wait  until  the  sovereign 
power  is  conferred  upon  them,  with  proper  limitations,  before  they  attempt 
to  exercise  the  most  dangerous  of  all  its  functions.  Mr.  Douglas  denies 
this,  and  there  is  the  new  issue. 

Why  should  such  an  issue  be  made  at  such  a time  ? What  is  there  now 
to  excuse  any  friend  of  peace  for  attempting  to  stir  up  the  bitter  waters 
of  strife  ? There  is  no  actual  difficulty  about  this  subject  in  any  Terri- 
tory. There  id  no  question  upon  it  pending  before  Congress  or  the  coun- 
try. We  are  called  upon  to  make  a contest,  at  once  unnecessary  and 
hopeless,  with  the  judicial  authority  of  the  nation.  We  object  to  it. 
We  will  not  obey  Mr.  Douglas  when  he  commands  us  to  assault  the  Su- 
preme Court  of  the  United  States.  We  believe  the  court  to  be  right,  and 
Mr.  Douglas  wrong. 


SPEECH 


SENATOR  S.  A.  DOUGLAS, 


ON 


A 


HIS  REPLY  TO  AIK.  FESSENDEN. 


DELIVERED  IN  THE  SENATE  OE  THE  UNITED  STATES,  JANUAEY  23,  I860. 


The  hour  having  arrived  for  the  consideration  of  the  special  order,  the  Senate 
proceeded  to  consider  the  following  resolution,  submitted  by  Mr.  Douglas  on 
the  16th  instant : 

Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary  he  instructed  to  report  a hill  for  the 
protection  of  each  State  and  Territory  of  the  Union  against  invasion  by  the  authorities  or 
inhabitants  of  any  other  State  or  Territory;  and  for  the  suppression  and  punishment  of 
conspiracies  or  combinations  in  any  State  or  Territory  with  intent  to  invade,  assail,  or 
molest  the  government,  inhabitants,  property,  or  institutions  of  any  other  State  or  Ter- 
ritory of  the  Union. 

Mr.  Douglas.  Mr.  President,  on  the  25th  of  November  last,  the  Governor 
of  Virginia  addressed  an  official  communication  to  the  President  of  the  United 

tates,  in  which  he  said : 

“I  have  information  from  various  quarters,  upon  which  I rely,  that  a conspiracy  of 
formidable  extent,  in  means  and  numbers,  is  formed  in  Ohio,  Pennsylvania,  New  York, 
and  other  States,  to  rescue  John  Brown  and  his  associates,  prisoners  at  Charlestown,  Vir- 
ginia. The  information  is  specific  enough  to  be  reliable.  * * * * 

“Places  in  Maryland,  Ohio,  and  Pennsylvania,  have  been  occupied  as  depots  and 
rendezvous  by  these  desperadoes,  and  unobstructed  by  guards  or  otherwise,  to  invade  this 
State,  and  we  are  kept  in  continual  apprehension  of  outrage  from  fire  and  rapine.  I ap- 
prise you  of  these  facts  in  order  that  you  may  take  steps  to  preserve  peace  between  the 
States.” 

To  this  communication,  the  President  of  the  United  States,  on  the  28th  of 
November,  returned  a reply,  from  which  I read  the  -following  sentence : 

“ I am  at  a loss  to  discover  any  provision  in  the  Constitution  or  laws  of  the  United  States 
which  would  authorize  me  to  ‘ take  steps’  for  this  purpose.”  [That  is,  to  preserve  the 
peace  between  the  States.] 

This  announcement  produced  a profound  impression  upon  the  public  mind  and 
especially  in  the  slaveholding  States.  It  was  generally  received  and  regarded 
as  an  authoritative  announcement  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United  State 


Printed  by  Lemuel  Towers, 


2 


confers  no  power  upon  tlie  Federal  Government  to  protect  each  of  the  States  of 
this  Union  against  invasion  from  the  other  States.  I shall  not  stop  to  inquire 
whether  the  President  meant  to  declare  that  the  existing  laws  confer  no  authority 
upon  him,  or  that  the  Constitution  empowers  Congress  to  enact  no  laws  which 
would  authorize  the  Federal  interposition  to  protect  the  States  from  invasion ; 
my  object  is  to  raise  the  inquiry,  and  to  ask  the  judgment  of  the  Senate  and 
of  the  House  of  Representatives  on  the  question,  whether  it  is  not  within  the 
power  of  Congress,  aud  the  duty  of  Congress,  under  the  Constitution,  to  enact 
all  laws  which  may  be  necessary  and  proper  for  the  protection  of  each  and  every 
State  against  invasion,  either  from  foreign  Powers  or  from  any  portion  of  the 
United  States. 

The  denial  of  the  existence  of  such  a power  in  the  Federal  Government  has 
induced  an  inquiry  among  conservative  men — men  loyal  to  the  Constitution  and 
devoted  to  the  Union — as  to  what  means  they  have  of  protection,  if  the  Federal 
Government  is  not  authorized  to  protect  them  against  external  violence.  It 
must  be  conceded  that  no  community  is  safe,  no  State  can  enjoy  peace,  or  pros- 
perity, or  domestic  tranquility,  without  security  against  external  violence.  Every 
State  and  nation  of  the  world,  outside  of  this  Republic,  is  supposed  to  maintain 
armies  and  navies  for  this  precisqfpprpose.  It  is  the  only  legitimate  purpose  for 
which  armies  and  navies  are  maintained  in  time  of  peace.  They  may  be  kept 
up  for  ambitious  purposes,  for  the  purposes  of  aggression  and  foreign  war;  but 
the  legitimate  purpose  of  a military  force  in  time  of  peace  is  to  insure  domestic 
tranquility  against  violence  or  aggression  from  without.  The  States  of  this 
Union  would  possess  that  power,  were  it  not  for  the  restraints  imposed  upon 
them  by  the  Federal  Constitution.  When  that  Constitution  was  made,  the 
States  surrendered  to  the  Federal  Government  the  power  to  raise  and  support 
armies,  and  the  power  to  provide  and  maintain  navies,  and  not  only  thus  sur- 
rendered the- means  of  protection  from  invasion,  but  consented  to  a prohibition 
upon  themselves  which  declares  that  no  State  shall  keep  troops  or  vessels  of  war 
in  time  of  peace. 

The  question  now  recurs,  whether  the  States  of  this  Union  are  in  that  help- 
less condition,  with  their  hands  tied  bv  the  Constitution,  stripped  of  all  means 
of  repelling  assaults  and  maintaining  their  existence,  without  a guarantee  from 
the  Federal  Government,  to  protect  them  against  violence.  If  the  people  of  this 
country  shall  settle  down  into  the  conviction  that  there  is  no  power  in  the 
Federal  Government  under  the  Constitution  to  protect  each  and  every  State 
from  violence,  from  aggression,  from  invasion,  they  will  demand  that  the  cord 
be  severed.,  and  that  the  weapons  be  restored  to  their  hands  with  which  they 
may  defend  themselves.  This  inquiry  involves  the  question  of  the  perpetuity 
of  the  Union.  The  means  of  defence,  the  means  of  repelling  assaults,  the  means 
of  providing  against  invasion,  must  exist  as  a condition  of  the  safety  of  the 
States  and  the  existence  of  the  Union. 

Now,  sir,  I hope  to  be  able  to  demonstrate  that  there  is  no  wrong  in  this 
Union  for  which  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  has  not  provided  a remedy. 
I believe,  and  I hope  I shall  be  able  to  maintain,  that  a remedy  is  furnished  for 
every  wrong  which  can  be  perpetrated  within  the  Union,  if  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment performs  its  whole  duty.  I think  it  is  clear,  on  a careful  examination  of 
the  Constitution,  that  the  power  is  conferred  upon  Congress,  first,  to  provide  for 
repelling  invasion  from  foreign  countries;  and,  secondly,  to  protect  each  State 
of  this  Uniou  against  invasion  from  any  other  State,  Territory,  or  place,  within 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States.  I will  first  turn  your  attention,  sir,  to  the 
power  conferred  upon  Congress  to  protect  the  United  States — including  States, 
'Territories,  and  the  District  of  Columbia ; including  every  inch  of  ground  within 
our  limits  and  jurisdiction — against  foreign  invasion.  In  the  eighth  section  of 
the  first  article  of  the  Constitution,  you  find  that  Congress  has  power — 


3 


“ To  raise  and  support  armies;  to  provide  and  maintain  a Navy  ; to  make  rules  for  the 
Government  and  regulation  of  the  land  and  naval  forces;  to  provide  for  calling  forth  the 
militia  to  execute  the  laws  of  the  Union,  suppress  insurrections,  and  repel  invasions.” 

These  various  clauses  confer  upon  Cougress  power  to  use  the  whole  military 
force  of  the  couutry  for  the  purpose  specified  in  the  Constitution.  They  shall 
provide  for  the  execution  of  the  laws  of  the  Union ; and,  secondly,  suppress  in- 
surrections. The  insurrections  there  referred  to  are  insurrections  against  the 
authority  of  the  United  States — insurrections  against  a State  authority  being 
provided  for  in  a subsequent  section,  in  which  the  United  States  cannot  interfere, 
except  upon  the  application  of  the  State  authorities.  The  invasion  which  is  to 
be  repelled  by  this  clause  of  the  Constitution  is  an  invasion  of  the  United  States. 
The  language  is,  Congress  shall  have  power  to  “ repel  invasions.”  That  gives 
the  authority  to  repel  the  invasion,  no  matter  whether  the  enemy  shall  land 
within  the  limits  of  Virginia,  within  the  District  of  Columbia,  within  the  Ter- 
ritory of  Hew  Mexico,  or  anywhere  else  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United 
States.  The  power  to  protect  every  portion  of  the  country  against  invasion 
from  foreign  nations  having  thus  been  specifically  conferred,  the  framers  of  the 
Constitution  then  proceeded  to  make  guarantees  for  the  protection  of  each  of  the 
States  by  Federal  authority.  I will  read  the  fourth  section  of  the  fourth  article 
of  the  Constitution : 

“The  United  States  shall  guaranty  to  every  State  id  this  Union  a republican  form  of 
government,  and  shall  protect  each  of  them  against  invasion ; and,  on  application  of  the 
Legislature,  or  of  the  Executive,  (when  the  Legislature  cannot  be  convened,)  against 
domestic  violence.” 

This  clause  contains  three  distinct  guarantees:  first,  the  United  States  shall 
guaranty  to  every  State  in  this  Union  a republican  form  of  government ; second, 
the  United  States  shall  protect  each  of  them  against  invasion;  third,  the  United 
States  shall,  on  application  of  the  Legislature,  or  of  the  Executive,  when  the 
Legislature  caunot  be  convened,  protect  them  against  domestic  violence.  How, 
sir,  I submit  to  you  whether  it  is  not  clear,  from  the  very  language  of  the  Con- 
stitution, that  this  clause  was  inserted  for  the  purpose  of  making  it  the  duty  of 
the  Federal  Government  to  protect  each  of  the  States  against  invasion  from  aDy 
other  State,  Territory,  or  place  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States  ? For 
what  other  purpose  was  the  clause  inserted  ? The  power  and  duty  of  protection 
as  against  foreign  nations  had  already  been  provided  for.  This  clause  occurs 
among  the  guarantees  from  the  United  States  to  each  State,  for  the  benefit  of 
each  State,  for  the  protection  of  each  State,  and  necessarily  from  other  States, 
inasmuch  as  the  guarantee  had  been  given  previously  as  against  foreign  nations. 

If  any  further  authority  is  necessary  to  show  that  such  is  the  true  construc- 
tion of  the  Constitution,  it  may  be  found  in  the  forty-third  number  of  the  Fede- 
ralist, written  by  James  Madison.  Mr.  Madison  quotes  the  clause  of  the  Con- 
stitution which  I have  read,  giving  these  three  guarantees ; and,  after  discussing 
the  one  guarantying  to  each  State  a republican  form  of  government,  proceeds 
to  consider  the  second,  which  makes  it  the  duty  of  the  United  States  to  protect 
each  of  the  States  against  invasion.  Here  is  what  Mr.  Madison  says  upon  that 
subject: 

“A  protection,  against  invasion  is  diUe  from  every  society  to  the  ■parts  composing  it.  The 
latitude  of  the  expression  here  used  seems  to  secure  each  State,  not  onlv  against  foreign 
hostility,  but  against  ambitious  or  vindictive  enterprises  of  its  more  powerful  neighbors. 
The  history  both  of  ancient  and  modern  confederacies  proves  that  the  weaker  members 
of  the  Union  ought  not  to  be  insensible  to  the  policy  of  this. article.” 

The  number  of  the  Federalist,  like  all  the  others  of  that  celebrated  work,  was- 
written  after  the  Constitution  was  made,  and  before  it  was  ratified  by  the  States 
and  with  a view  to  securing  its  ratification ; hence  the  people  of  the  several 
States,  when  they  ratified  this  instrument,  knew  that  this  clause  was  intended 
to  hear  the  construction  which  I now  place  upon  it.  It  was  intended  to  make- 


4 


it  the  duty  of  every  society  to  protect  each  of  its  parts;  the  duty  of  the  Fede- 
ral Government  to  protect  each  of  the  States ; and,  he  says,  the  smaller  States 
ought  not  to  be  insensible  to  the  policy  of  this  article  of  the  Constitution. 

Then,  sir,  if  it  be  made  the  imperative  duty  of  the  Federal  Government,  by 
the  express  provision  of  the  Constitution,  to  protect  each  of  the  States  against 
invasion  or  violence  from  the  other  States,  or  from  combinations  of  desperadoes 
within  their  limits,  it  necessarily  follows  that  it  is  the  duty  of  Congress  to  pass 
all  laws  necessary  and  proper  to  render  that  guarantee  effectual.  While  Con- 
gress, in  the  early  history  of  the  Government,  did  provide  legislation,  which  is 
supposed  to  be  ample  to  protect  the  United  States  against  invasion  from  foreign 
countries  and  the  Indian  tribes,  they  have  failed,  up  to  this  time,  to  make  any 
law  for  the  protection  of  each  of  the  States  against  invasion  from  within  the 
limits  of  the  Union.  I am  unable  to  account  for  this  omission  ; but  I presume 
the  reason  is' to  be  found  in  the  fact  that  no  Congress  ever  dreamed  that  such 
legislation  would  e#r  become  necessary  for  the  protection  of  one  State  of  this 
Union  against  invasion  and  violence  from  her  sister  States.  Who,  until  the 
Harper’s  Ferry  outrage,  ever  conceived  that  American  citizens  could  be  so 
forgetful  of  their  duties  to  themselves,  to  their  country,  to  the  Constitution,  as 
to  plan  an  invasion  of  another  State,  with  the  view  of  inciting  servile  insurrec- 
tion, murder,  treason,  and  every  other  crime  that  disgraces  humanity?  While, 
therefore,  no  blame  can  justly  be  attached  to  our  predecessors  in  failing  to  pro- 
vide the  legislation  necessary  to  render  this  guarantee  of  the  Constitution  effec- 
tual ; still,  since  the  experience  of  last  year,  we  cannot  stand  justified  in  omit- 
ting longer  to  perform  this  imperative  duty. 

The  question  then  remaining  is,  what  legislation  is  necessary  and  proper  to 
.render  this  guarantee  of  the  Constitution  effectual  ? I presume  there  will  be 
very  little  difference  of  opinion  that  it  will  be  necessary  to  place  the  whole 
military  power  of  the  Government  at  the  disposal  of  the  President,  under 
proper  guards  and  restrictions  against  abuse,  to  repel  and  suppress  invasion 
when  the  hostile  force  shall  be  actually  in  the  field.  But,  sir,  that  is  not  suffi- 
cient. Such  legislation  would  not  be  a full  compliance  with  this  guarantee  of 
the  Constitution.  The  framers  of  that  instrument  meant  more  when  they  gave 
the  guarantee.  Mark  the  difference  in  language  between  the  provision  for  pro- 
tecting the  United  States  against  invasion  and  that  for  protecting  the  States. 
When  it  provided  for  protecting  the  United  States,  it  said  Congress  shall  have 
power  to  “ repel  invasion.”  When  it  came  to  make  this  guarantee  to  the  States 
it  changed  the  language  and  said  the  United  States  shall  11  protect”  each  of  the 
States  against  invasion.  In  the  one  instance,  the  duty  of  the  Government  is  to 
repel;  in  the  other,  the  guarantee  is  that  they  will  protect.  In  other  words, 
the  United  States  are  not  permitted  to  wait  until  the  enemy  shall  be  upon  your 
borders ; until  the  invading  army  shall  have  been  organized  and  drilled  and 
placed  in  march  with  a view  to  the  invasion;  but  they  must  pass  all  laws 
necessary  and  proper  to  insure  protection  and  domestic  tranquility  to  each  State 
and  Territory  of  this  Union  agaiust  invasion  or  hostilities  from  other  States  and 
Territories. 

Then,  sir,  I hold  that  it  is  not  only  necessary  to  use  the  military  power  when 
the  actual  case  of  invasion  shall  occur,  but  to  authorize  the  judicial  depart- 
ment of  the  Government  to  suppress  all  conspiracies  and  combinations  in  the 
several  States  with  intent  to  invade  a State,  or  molest  or  disturb  its  govern- 
ment, its  peace,  its  citizens,  its  property,  or  its  institutions.  You  must  pun- 
ish the  conspiracy,  the  combination  with  intent  to  do  the  act,  and  theD  you  will 
suppress  it  in  advance.  There  is  no  principle  more  familiar  to  the  legal  pro- 
fession than  that  wherever  it  is  proper  to  declare  an  act  to  be  a crime,  it  is 
proper  to  punish  a conspiracy  or  combination  with  intent  to  perpetrate  the  act. 
Hook  upon  -your  statute-books,  and  I presume  you  will  find  an  enactment  to 


5 


punish  the  counterfeiting  of  the  coin  of  the  United  States;  and  then  another 
section  to  punish  a man  for  having  counterfeit  coin  in  his  possession  with  intent 
to  pass  it;  and  another  section  to  punish  him  for  having  the  molds,  or  dies,  or 
instruments  for  counterfeiting,  with  intent  to  use  them.  This  is  a familiar  prin- 
ciple in  legislative  and  judicial  proceedings.  If  the  act  of  invasion  is  criminal, 
the  conspiracy  to  invade  should  also  be  made  criminal.  If  it  be  unlawful  and 
illegal  to  invade  a State,  and  run  off  fugitive  slaves,  why  not  make  it  unlawful 
to  form  conspiracies  and  combinations  in  the  several  States  with  intent  to  do 
the  act?  We  have  been  told  that  a notorious  man  who  has  recently  suffered 
death  for  his  crimes  upon  the  gallows,  boasted  in  Cleaveland,  Ohio,  in  a public 
lecture,  a year  ago,  that  he  had  then  a body  of  men  employed  in  running  away 
horses  from  the  slaveholders  of  Missouri,  and  pointed  to  a livery  stable  in  Cleave- 
land which  was  fall  of  the  stolen  horses  at  that  time. 

I think  it  is  within  our  competency,  and  consequently  our  duty,  to  pass  a law 
making  every  conspiracy  or  combination  in  any  State  or  Territory  of  this  Union 
to  invade  another  with  intent  to  steal  or  run  away  property ®f  any  kind,  whether 
it  be  negroes,  or  horses,  or  property  of  any  other  description,  into  another  State, 
a crime,  and  punish  the  conspirators  by  indictment  in  the  United  States  courts 
and  confinement  in  the  prisons  or  penitentiaries  of  the  State  or  Territory  where 
the  conspiracy  may  be  formed  and  quelled.  Sir,  I would  carry  these  provisions 
of  law  as  far  as  our  constitutional  power  will  reach.  I would  make  it  a crime 
to  form  conspiracies  with  a view  of  invading  States  or  Territories  to  control 
elections,  whether  they  be  under  the  garb  of  Emigrant  Aid  Societies  of  New 
England  or  Blue  Lodges  of  Missouri.  (Applause  in  the  galleries.)  In  other 
words,  this  provision  of  the  Constitution  means  more  than  the  mere  repelling 
of  an  invasion  when  the  invading  army  shall  reach  the  border  of  a State.  The 
language  is,  it  shall  protect  the  State  against  invasion  ; the  meaning  of  which 
is,  to  use  the  language  of  the  preamble  to  the  Constitution,  to  insure  to  each 
State  domestic  tranquility  against  external  violence.  There  can  be  no  peace, 
there  can  be  no  prosperity,  there  can  he  no  safety  in  any  community,  unless  it 
is  secured  against  violence  from  abroad.  Why,  sir,  it  has  been  a question  se- 
riously mooted  in  Europe,  whether  it  was  uot  the  duty  of  England,  a Power 
foreign  to  France,  to  pass  laws  to  punish  conspiracies  in  England  agamst  the 
lives  of  the  princes  of  France.  I shall  not  argue  the  question  of  comity  be- 
tween foreign  States.  I predicate  my  argument  upon  the  Constitution  by  which 
we  are  governed,  and  which  we  have  sworn  to  obey,  and  demand  that  the  Con- 
stitution be  executed  iu  good  faith  so  as  to  punish  and  suppress  every  combina- 
tion, every  conspiracy,  either  to  invade  a State  or  to  molest  its  inhabitants,  or 
to  disturb  its  property,  or  to  subvert  its  institutions  and  its  government.  I be- 
lieve this  can  he  effectually  done  by  authorizing  the  United  States  courts  in  the 
several  States  to  take  jurisdiction  of  the  offence,  and  punish  the  violation  of  the 
law  with  appropriate  punishments. 

It  cannot  be  said  that  the  time  has  not  yet  arrived  for  such  legislation.  It 
cannot  be  said  with  truth  that  the  Harper’s  Ferry  case  will  not  be  repeated,  or 
is  not  in  clanger  of  repetition.  It  is  only  necessary  to  inquire  into  the  causes 
which  produced  the  Harper’s  Ferry  outrage,  and  ascertain  whether  those  causes 
are  yet  in  active  operation,  and  then  you  can  determine  whether  there  is  any 
ground  for  apprehension  that  that  invasion  will  be  repeated.  Sir,  what  were 
the  causes  which  produced  the  Harper’s  Ferry  outrage?  Without  stopping  to 
adduce  evidence  iu  detail,  I have  no  hesitation  in  expressing  my  firm  and  delib- 
erate convict’on  that  the  Harper’s  Ferry  crime  was  the  natural,  logical,  inevita- 
ble result  of  the  doctrines  and  teachings  of  the  Republican  party,  as  explained 
and  enforced  in  their  platform,  their  partisan  presses,  their  pamphlets  and  books, 
and  especially  in  the  speeches  of  their  leaders  in  and  out  of  Congress.  (Ap- 
plause in  the  galleries.) 


6 


Mr.  Mason.  I trust  the  order  of  the  Senate  will  he  preserved.  I am  sure  it 
is  only  necessary  to  suggest  to  the  Presiding  Officer  the  indispensable  necessity 
of  preserving  the  order  of  the  Senate;  and  I give  notice  that,  if  it  is  disturbed 
again,  I shall  insist  upon  the  galleries  being  cleared  entirely. 

Mr.  Douglas.  Mr.  President 

The  Vice  President.  The  Senator  will  pause  for  a single  moment.  It  is 
impossible  for  the  Chair  to  preserve  order  without  the  concurrence  of  the  vast 
assembly  in  the  galleries.  lie  trusts  that  there  will  be  no  occasion  to  make  a 
reference  to  this  subject  again. 

Mr.  Toombs.  I hope  that  the  Presiding  Officer  will  place  officers  in  the  gal- 
leries, and  put  a stop  to  this  thing.  It  is  a very  bad  sign  of  the  times.  It  is 
unbecoming  this  body,  or  the  deliberations  of  any  free  people. 

The  Vice  President.  The  Presiding  Officer  has  not  the  force  at  his  com- 
mand to  place  office^  in  the  gallery. 

Mr.  Douglas.  If  the  Senate  will  pardon  me  for  a digression  an  instant,  I 
was  about  to  suggest  to  the  Presiding  Officer  that  I thought  it  would  be  neces- 
sary to  place  officers  in  different  parts  of  tbe  gallery,  with  instructions  that  if 
they  saw  any  person  giving  any  signs  of  approbation  or  disapprobation  calcu- 
lated to  disturb  our  proceedings,  they  should  instantly  put  the  guilty  person  out 
of  the  gallery. 

The  Vice  President.  That  has  been  doue. 

Mr.  Douglas.  I was  remarking  that  I considered  this  outrage  at  Harper’s 
Ferry  as  the  logical,  natural  consequence  of  the  teachings  and  doctrines,  of  the 
Republican  party.  I am  not  making  this  statement  for  the  purpose  of  crimina- 
tion or  partisan  effect.  I desire  to  call  the  attention  of  members  of  that  party 
to  a reconsideration  of  the  doctrines  that  they  are  in  the  habit  of  enforcing, 
with  a view  to  a fair  judgment  whether  they  do  not  lead  directly  to  those  con- 
sequences, on  the  part  of  those  deluded  persons  who  think  that  all  they  say  is 
meant,  in  real  earnest,  and  ought  to  be  carried  out.  The  great  principle  that 
underlies  the  Republican  party  is  violent,  irreconcilable,  eternal  warfare  upon 
the  institution  of  American  slavery,  with  the  view  of  its  ultimate  extinction 
throughout  the  land;  sectional  war  is  to  be  waged  until  the  cotton  field  of  the 
South  shall  be  cultivated  by  free  labor,  or  the  rye  fields  of  New  York  and  Mas- 
sachusetts shall  be  cultivated  by  slave  labor.  In  furtherance  of  this  article  of 
their  creed,  you  find  their  political  organization  not  only  sectional  in  its  location, 
but  one  whose  vitality  consists  in  appeals  to  northern  passion,  northern  preju- 
dice, northern  ambition  against  southern  States,  southern  institutions,  and  south- 
ern people.  I have  had  some  experience  in  fighting  this  element  within  the  last 
few  years,  and  I find  that  the  source  of  their  power  consists  in  exciting  the  preju- 
dices and  the  passions  of  the  northern  section  against  those  of  the  southern  section. 
They  not  only  attempt  to  excite  the  North  against  the  South,  but  they  invite  the 
South  to  assail  and  abuse  and  traduce  the  North.  Southern  abuse,  by  violent 
men,  of  northern  statesmen  and  northern  people,  is  essential  to  the  triumph  of 
the  Republican  cause.  Hence  tbe  course  of  argument  which  we  have  to  meet 
is  not  only  repelling  the  appeals  to  nor  thern  passion  and  prejudice,  hut  we  have 
to  encounter  their  appeals  to  southern  men  to  assail  us,  in  order  that  they  may 
justify  their  assaults  upon  the  plea  of  self-defence. 

Sir,  when  I returned  home  in  1858,  for  the  purpose  of  canvassing  Illinois,  with 
a view  to  a re-election,  I had  to  meet  this  issue  of  the  “ irrepressible  conflict.”  It  is 
true  that  the  Senator  from  New  York  had  not  then  made  his  Rochester  speech,  and 
did  not  for  four  mouths  afterwards.  It  is  true  that  he  had  not  given  the  doctrine 
that  precise  name  and  form ; but  the  principle  was  in  existence,  and  had  been  pro- 


7 


claimed  by  the  ablest  and  the  most  clear-headed  men  of  the  party.  I will  call  your 
attention,  sir,  to  a single  passage  from  a speech,  to  show  the  language  in  which 
this  doctrine  was  stated  in  Illinois  before  it  received  the  name  of'  the  “irrepres- 
sible conflict.”  The  Republican  party  assembled  in  State  convention  in  June, 
1858,  in  Illinois,  and  unanimously  adopted  Abraham  Lincoln  as  their  candidate 
for  United  States  Senator.  Mr.  Lincoln  appeared  before  the  convention,  accepted 
the  nomination,  and  made  a speech — which  had  been  previously  written  and 
agreed  to  in  caucus  by  most  of  the  leaders  of  the  party.  I will  read  a single 
extract  from  that  speech  : 

“In  my  opinion,  it  [the  slavery  agitation]  will  not  cease  until  a crisis  shall  have  been 
reached  and  passed.  ‘A  house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand.’  I believe  this  Gov- 
ernment cannot  endure  permanently,  half  slave  and  half  free.  I do  not  expect  the  house 
to  fall,  but  I do  expect  it  will  cease  to  be  divided.  It  will  become  all  one  thing  or  all  the 
other.  Either  the  opponents  of  slavery  will  arrest  the  further  spread  of  it,  and  place  it 
where  the  public  mind  shall  rest  in  the  belief  that  it  is  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinc- 
tion ; or  its  advocates  will  push  forward  till  it  shall  become  alike  lawful  in  all  the  States — 
old  as  well  as  new,  North  as  well  as  South.” 

Sir,  the  moment  I landed  upon  the  soil  of  Illinois,  at  a vast  gathering  of 
many  thousands  of  my  constituents  to  welcome  me  home,  I read  that  passage, 
and  took  direct  issue  with  the  doctrine  contained  in  it  as  being  revolutionary 
and  treasonable,  and  inconsistent  with  the  perpetuity  of  this  Republic.  That  is 
not  merely  the  individual  opinion  of  Mr.  Lincoln  ; nor  is  it  the  individual  opin- 
ion merely  of  the  Senator  from  New  York,  who  four  months  afterwards  asserted 
the  same  doctrine  in  different  language ; but,  so  far  as  I know,  it  is  the  general 
opinion  of  the  members  of  the  Abolition  or  Republican  party.  They  tell  the 
people  of  the  North  that  unless  they  rally  as  one  man,  under  a sectional  banner, 
and  make  war  upon  the  South  with  a view  to  the  ultimate  extinction  of  slavery, 
slavery  will  overrun  the  whold  North  and  fasten  itself  upon  all  the  free  States. 
They  then  tell  the  South,  unless  you  rally  as  one  man,  binding  the  whole  south- 
ern people  into  a sectional  party,  and  establish  slavery  all  over  the  free  States, 
the  inevitable  consequence  will  be  that  we  shall  abolish  it  in  the  slaveholding 
States.  The  same  doctrine  is  held  by  the  Senator  from  New  York  in  his  Ro- 
chester speech.  He  tells  us  that  the  States  must  all  become  free,  or  all  become 
slave;  that  the  South,  in  other  words,  must  conquer  and  subdue  the  North, 
or  the  North  must  triumph  over  the  South,  and  drive  slavery  from  within  its 
limits. 

Mr.  President,  in  order  to  show  that  I have  not  misinterpreted  the  position  of 
the  Senator  from  New  York,  in  notifying  the  South  that,  if  they  wish  to  main- 
tain slavery  within  their  limits,  they  must  also  fasten  it  upon  the  northern  States, 
I will  read  an  extract  from  his  Rochester  speech : 

“It  is  an  irrepressible  conflict  between  opposing  and  enduring  forces;  and  it  means  that 
the  United  States  must  and  will,  sooner  or  later,  become  either  entirely  a slaveholding 
nation,  or  entirely  a free-labor  nation.  Either  the  cotton  and  rice  fields  of  South  Caro- 
lina, and  the  sugar  plantations  of  Louisiana,  will  ultimately  be  tilled  by  free  labor,  and 
Charleston  and  New  Orleans  become  marts  for  legitimate  merchandise  alone,  or  else  th» 
rye  fields  and  wheat  fields  of  Massachusetts  and  New  York  must  again  be  surrendered  by 
their  farmers  to  slave  culture  and  toYhe  production  of  slaves,  and  Boston  and  New  York 
become  once  more  markets  for  trade  in  the  bodies  and  souls  of  men.” 

Thus,  sir,  you  perceive  that  the  theory  of  the  Republican  party  is,  that  there 
is  a conflict  between  two  different  systems  of  institutions  in  the  respective  classes 
of  States — not  a conflict  in  the  same  States,  but  an  irrepressible  conflict  between 
the  free  States  and  the  slave  States  ; and  they  argue  that  these  two  systems  of 
State  cannot  permanently  exist  in  the  same  Union  ; that  the  sectional  warfare 
must  continue  to  rage  and  increase  with  increasing  fury  until  the  free  States  shall 
surrender,  or  the  slave  States  shall  be  subdued.  Hence,  while  they  appeal  to 
the  passions  of  our  own  section,  their  object  is  to  alarm  the  people  of  the  other 


8 


section,  and  drive  them  to  madness,  with  the  hope  that  they  will  invade  our 
rights  as  an  excuse  for  some  of  our  people  to  carry  on  aggressions  upon  their 
rights.  I appeal  to  the  candor  of  Senators,  whether  this  is  not  a fair  exposition 
of  the  tendency  of  the  doctrines  proclaimed  by  the  Republican  party.  The 
creed  of  that  party  is  founded  upon  the  theory  that,  because  slavery  is  not  de- 
sirable in  our  States,  it  is  not  desirable  anywhere;  because  free  labor  is  a good 
thing  with  us,  it  must  be  the  best  thing  everywhere.  In  other  words,  the  creed 
of  their  party  rests  upon  the  theory  that  there  must  be  uniformity  in  the  do- 
mestic institutions  and  internal  polity  of  the  several  States  of  this  Union. 
There,  in  my  opinion,  is  the  fundamental  error  upon  which  their  whole  system 
rests.  In  the  Illinois  canvass,  I asserted,  and  now  repeat,  that  uniformity  in 
the  domestic  institutions  of  the  different  States  is  neither  possible  nor  desirable. 
That  is  the  very  issue  upon  which  I conducted  the  canvass  at  home,  and  it  is 
the  question  which  I desire  to  present  to  the  Senate.  I repeat,  that  uniformity 
in  domestic  institutions  of  the  different  States  is  neither  possible  nor  desira- 
ble. 

Was  such  the  doctrine  of  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  ? I wish  the  coun- 
try to  bear  in  mind  that  when  the  Constitution  was  adopted  the  Union  consisted 
of  thirteen  States,  twelve  of  which  were  slaveholding  States,  and  one  a free 
State.  Suppose  this  doctrine  of  uniformity  on  the  slavery  question  had  prevail- 
ed in  the  Federal  convention,  do  the  gentlemen  on  that  side  of  the  House  think 
that  freedom  would  have  triumphed  over  slavery?  Do  they  imagine  that  the 
one  free  State  would  have  outvote^  the  twelve  slaveholding  States,  and  thus 
have  abolished  slavery  throughout  the  land  by  a constitutional  provision  ? On 
the  contrary,  if  the  test  had  then  been  made,  if  this  doctrine  of  uniformity  on 
the  slavery  question  had  then  been  proclaimed  and  believed  in,  with  the  twelve 
slaveholding  States  against  one  free  State,  would  it  not  have  resulted  in  a con- 
stitutional provision  fastening  slavery  irrevocably  upon  every  inch  of  American 
soil,  North  as  well  as  South?  Was  it  quite  fair  in  those  days  for  the  friends  of 
free  institutions  to  claim  that  the  Federal  Government  must  not  touch  the  ques- 
tion, but  must  leave  the  people  of  each  State  to  do  as  they  pleased,  until  under 
the  operation  of  that  principle  they  secured  the  majority,  and  then  wield  that 
majority  to  abolish  slavery  in  the  other  States  of  the  Union  ? 

Sir,  if  uniformity  in  respect  to  domestic  institutions  had  been  deemed  desira- 
ble when  the  Constitution  was  adopted,  there  was  another  mode  by  which  it 
could  have  been  obtained.  The  natural  mode  of  obtaining  uniformity  was  to 
have  blotted  out  the  State  governments,  to  have  abolished  the  State  Legislatures, 
to  have  conferred  upon  Congress  legislative  power  over  the  municipal  and  do- 
mestic concerns  of  the  people  of  all  the  States,  as  well  as  upon  Federal  questions 
affecting  the  whole  Union;  and  if  this  doctrine  of  uniformity  had  been  enter- 
tained and  favored  by  the  framers  of  the  Constitution,  such  would  have  been 
the  result.  But,  sir,  the  framers  of  that  instrument  knew  at  that  day,  as  well 
as  we  now  know,  that  in  a country  as  broad  as  this,  with  so  great  a variety  of 
climate,  of  soil,  and  of  production,  there  must  necessarily  be  a corresponding 
diversity  of  institutions  and  domestic  regulations,  adapted  to  the  wants  and 
necessities  of  each  locality.  The  framers  of  the  Constitution  knew  that  the  laws 
and  institutions  which  were  well  adapted  to  the  mountains  and  valleys  of  New 
England  were  ill-suited  to  the  rice  plantations  and  the  cotton-fields  of  the  Caro- 
linas.  They  knew  that  our  liberties  depended  upon  reserving  the  right  to  the 
people  of  each  State  to  make  their  own  laws  and  establish  their  own  institutions, 
and  control  them  at  pleasure,  without  interference  from  the  Federal  Government, 
or  from  any  other  State  or  Territory,  or  any  foreign  country.  The  Constitution, 
therefore,  was  based,  and  the  Union  was  founded,  on  the  principle  of  dissimi- 
larity in  the  domestic  institutions  and  internal  polity  of  the  several  States.  The 
Union  was  founded  on  the  theory  that  each  State  had  peculiar  interests,  re- 


9 


quiring  peculiar  legislation,  and  peculiar  institutions,  different  and  distinct  from 
every  other  State.  The  Union  rests  on  the  theory  that  no  two  States  would  be 
precisely  alike  in  their  domestic  policy  and  institutions. 

Hence,  I assert  that  this  doctrine  of  uniformity  in  the  domestic  institutions 
of  the  different  States  is  repugnant  to  the  Constitution,  subversive  of  the  prin- 
ciples upon  which  the  Union  was  based,  revolutionary  in  its  character,  and 
leading  directly  to  despotism  if  it  is  ever  established.  Uniformity  in  local  and 
domestic  affairs  in  a country  of  great  extent  is  despotism  always.  Show  me 
centralism  prescribing  uniformity  from  the  capital  to  all  of  its  provinces  in  their 
local  and  domestic  concerns,  and  I will  show  you  a despotism  as  odious  and  as 
insufferable  as  that  of  Austria  or  of  Naples.  Dissimilarity  is  the  principle  upon 
which  the  Union  rests.  It  is  founded  upon  the  idea  that  each  State  must  neces- 
sarily require  different  regulations ; that  no  two  States  have  precisely  the  same 
interests,  and  hence  do  not  need  precisely  the  same  laws ; and  you  cannot  ac- 
count for  this  confederation  of  States  upon  any  other  principle. 

Then,  sir,  what  becomes  of  this  doctrine  that  slavery  must  be  established  in 
all  the  States  or  prohibited  in  all  the  States  ? If  we  only  conform  to  the  prin- 
ciples upon  which  the  Federal  Union  was  formed,  there  can  be  no  conflict.  It 
is  only  necessary  to  recognize  the  right  of  the  people  of  every  State  to  have  just 
such  institutions  as  they  please,  without  consulting  your  wishes,  your  views,  or 
your  prejudices,  and  there  can  be  no  conflict. 

And,  sir,  inasmuch  as  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  confers  upon 
Congress  the  power  coupled  with  the  duty  of  protecting  each  State  against  ex- 
ternal aggression,  and  inasmuch  as  that  includes  the  power  of  suppressing  and 
punishing  conspiracies  in  one  State  against  the  institutions,  property,  people,  or 
government  of  every  other  State,  I desire  to  carry  out  that  power  vigorously. 
Sir,  give  us  such  a law  as  the  Constitution  contemplates  and  authorizes,  and  I 
will  show  the  Senator  from  New  York  that  there  is  a constitutional  mode  of  re- 
pressing the  “irrepressible  conflict.”  I will  open  the  prison  door  to  allow 
conspirators  against  the  peace  of  the  Republic  and  the  domestic  tranquility  of  our 
States  to  select  their  cells  wherein  to  drag  out  a miserable  life,  as  a punishment 
for  their  crimes  against  the  peace  of  society. 

Can  any  man  say  to  us  that  although  this  outrage  has  been  perpetrated  at 
Harper’s  Ferry,  there  is  no  danger  of  its  recurrence  ? Sir,  is  not  the  Repub- 
lican party  still  embodied,  organized,  confident  of  success,  and  defiant  in  its 
pretensions?  Does  it  not  now  hold  and  proclaim  the  same  creed  that  it  did 
before  this  invasion  ? It  is  true  that  most  of  its  representatives  here  disavow 
the  acts  of  John  Brown  at  Harper’s  Ferry.  I am  glad  that  they  do  so;  I am 
rejoiced  that  they  have  gone  thus  far ; but  I must  be  permitted  to  say  to  them 
that  it  is  not  sufficient  that  they  disavow  the  act,  unless  they  also  repudiate  and 
denounce  the  doctrines  and  teachings  which  produced  the  act.  Those  doctrines 
remain  the  same;  those  teachings  are  being  poured  into  the  minds  of  men 
throughout  the  country  by  means  of  speeches  and  pamphlets  and  books  and 
through  partisan  presses.  The  causes  that  produced  the  Harper’s  Ferry  inva- 
sion are  now  in  active  operation.  It  is  true  that  the  people  of  all  the  border 
States  are  required  by  the  Constitution  to  have  their  hands  tied,  without  the 
power  of  self-defence,  and  remain  patient  under  a threatened  invasion  in  the 
day  or  in  the  night?  Can  you  expect  people  to  be  patient,  when  they  dare  not 
lie  down  to  sleep  at  night  without  first  stationing  sentinels  around  their  houses' 
to  see  if  a band  of  marauders  and  murderers  are  not  approaching  with  torch  and 
pistol?  Sir,  it  requires  more  patience  than  freemen  ever  should  cultivate,  to 
submit  to  constant  annoyance,  irritation  and  apprehension.  If  we  expect  t$ 
preserve  this  Union,  we  must  remedy,  within  the  Union  and  in  obedience  t6 
the  Constitution,  every  evil  for  which  disunion  would  furnish  a remedy.  If  the 
Federal  Government  fails  to  act,  either  from  choice  or  from  an  apprehension  ot 


10 

the  want  of  power,  it  cannot  be  expected  that  the  States  will  be  content  to  re- 
main unprotected. 

Then,  sir,  I see  no  hope  of  peace,  of  fraternity,  of  good  feeling,  between  the 
different  portions  of  the  United  States,  except  by  bringing  to  bear  the  power  of 
the  Federal  Government  to  the  extent  authorized  by  the  Constitution — to  pro- 
tect the  people  of  all  the  States  against  any  external  violence  or  aggression.  I 
repeat,  that  if  the  theory  of  the  Constitution  shall  be  carried  out  by  conceding 
the  right  of  the  people  of  every  State  to  have  just  such  institutions  as  they, 
choose,  there  cannot  be  a conflict,  much  less  an  “ irrepressible  conflict,”  be- 
tween the  free  and  the  slaveholding  States. 

Mr.  President,  the  mode  of  preserving  peace  is  plain.  This  system  of  sec- 
tional warfare  must  cease.  The  Constitution  has  given  the  power,  and  all  we 
ask  of  Congress  is  to  give  the  means,  and  we,  by  indictments  and  convictions 
in  the  Federal  courts  of  our  several  States,  will  make  such  examples  of  the 
leaders  of  these  conspiracies  as  will  strike  terror  into  the  hearts  of  the  others, 
and  there  will  be  an  end  of  this  crusade.  Sir,  you  must  check  it  by  crushing 
out  the  conspiracy,  the  combination,  and  then  there  can  be  safety.  Then  we 
shall  be  able  to  restore  that  spirit  of  fraternity  which  inspired  our  revolutionary 
fathers  upon  every  battle-field  ; which  presided  over  the  deliberations  of  the 
convention  that  framed  the  Constitution,  and  filled  the  hearts  of  the  people 
who  ratified  it.  Then  we  shall  be  able  to  demonstrate  to  you  that  there  is  no 
evil  unredressed  in  the  Uuion  for  which  disunion  would  furnish  a remedy. 
Then,  sir,  let  us  execute  the  Constitution  in  the  spirit  in  which  it  was  made. 
Let  Congress  pass  all  the  laws  necessary  and  proper  to  give  full  and  complete 
effect  to  every  guarantee  of  the  Constitution.  Let  them  authorize  the  punish- 
ment of  conspiracies  and  combinations  in  any  State  or  Territory  against  the 
property,  institutions,  people  or  government  of  any  other  State  or  Territory,  and 
there  will  be  no  excuse,  no  desire,  for  disunion.  Then,  sir,  let  us  leave  the 
people  of  every  State  perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic  institu- 
tions in  their  own  way.  Let  each  of  them  retain  slavery  just  as  long  as  it 
pleases,  and  abolish  it  when  it  chooses.  Let  us  act  upon  that  good  old  golden 
principle  which  teaches  all  men  to  mind  their  own  business  and  let  their  neigh- 
bors alone.  Let  this  be  done  and  this  Union  can  endure  forever  as  our  fathers 
made  it,  composed  of  free  and  slave  States,  just  as  the  people  of  each  State  may 
determine  for  themselves. 

Mr.  Fessenden  having  replied  at  some  length  to  Mr.  Douglas,  he  made  the 
following  rejoinder: 

Mr.  Douglas.  Mr.  President,  I shall  not  follow  the  Senator  from  Maine 
through  his  entire  speech,  but  simply  notice  such  points  as  demand  of  me  some 
reply.  He  does  not  know  why  I introduced  my  resolution  ; he  cannot  conceive 
any  good  motive  for  it ; he  thinks  there  must  be  some  other  motive  besides  the 
one  that  has  been  avowed.  There  are  some  men,  I know,  who  cannot  conceive 
that  a man  can  be  governed  by  a patriotic  or  proper  motive ; but  it  is  not  among 
that  class  of  men  that  I look  for  those  who  are  governed  by  motives  of  propriety. 
I have  no  impeachment  to  make  of  his  motives.  I brought  in  this  resolution 
because  I thought  the  time  had  arrived  when  we  should  have  a measure  of  prac- 
tical legislation.  I had  seen  expressions  of  opinion  against  the  power  from  au- 
thorities so  high  that  I felt  it  my  duty  to  bring  it  to  the  attention  of  the  Senate. 
I had  heard  that  the  Senator  from  Virginia  had  intimated  some  doubt  on  the 
question  of  power,  as  well  as  of  policy.  Other  Senators  discussed  the  question 
here  for  weeks  when  I was  confined  to  my  sick  bed.  Was  there  anything  un- 
reasonable in  my  coming  before  the  Senate  at  this  time,  expressing  my  own 
opinion  and  confining  myself  to  the  practical  legislation  indicated  in  the  resolu- 
tion ? Nor,  sir,  have  I in  my  remarks  gone  outside  of  the  legitimate  argument 


11 


pertaining  to  the  necessity  for  this  legislation.  I first  showed  that  there  had 
been  a great  outrage ; I showed  what  I believed  to  be  the  causes  that  had  pro- 
duced the  outrage,  and  that  the  eauses  which  produced  it  were  still  in  ope- 
ration; and  argued  that,  so  loDg  as  the  party  to  which  the  gentlemen  belong 
remains  embodied  in  full  force,  those  causes  will  still  threaten  the  country.  That 
was  all. 

The  Senator  from  Maine  thinks  he  will  vote  for  the  bill  that  will  be  proposed 
to  carry  out  the  objects  referred  to  in  my  resolution.  Sir,  whenever  that  Sena- 
tor and  his  associates  on  the  other  side  of  the  chamber  will  record  their  votes 
for  a bill  of  the  character  described  in  my  resolution  and  speech,  I shall  con- 
gratulate the  country  upon  the  progress  they  are  making  towards  sound  princi- 
ples. Whenever  he  and  his  associates  will  make  it  a felony  for  two  or  more 
men  to  conspire  to  run  off  fugitive  slaves,  and  punish  the  conspirators  by  con- 
finement in  the  penitentiary,  I shalj  consider  that  wonderful  changes  have  taken 
place  in  this  country.  I tell  the  Senator  that  it  is  the  general  tone  of  sentiment 
in  all  those  sections  of  the  country  where  the  Republican  party  predominate,  so 
far  as  I know,  not  only  not  to  deem  it  a crime  to  rescue  a fugitive  slave,  but  to 
raise  mobs  to  aid  in  the  rescue.  He  talks  about  slandering  the  Republican 
party  when  we  intimate  that  they  are  making  a warfare  upon  the  rights  guar- 
antied by  the  Constitution.  Sir,  where,  in  the  towns  and  cities  with  Republican 
majorities,  can  you  execute  the  fugitive  slave  law  ? Is  it  in  the  town  where  the 
Senator  from  New  York  resides?  Do  you  not  remember  the  Jerrey  rescuers? 
Is  it  at  Oberlin,  where  the  mob  was  raised  that  made  the  rescue  last  year  and 
produced  the  riot? 

Mr.  Fessenden.  I stated,  and  I believe  it  was  all  I said  on  that  matter, 
that  I was  disposed  to  agree  with  the  Senator  in  his  views  as  to  the  question  of 
power ; and  that,  with  my  views,  I should  go  very  far — far  enough  to  accom- 
plish the  purpose — to  prevent  the  forming  of  conspiracies  in  one  State  to  attack 
another.  I did  not  understand  the  Senator  to  say  anything  about  conspiracies 
to  run  away  with  slaves  ; nor  did  I understand  him  to  say  anything  about  the 
fugitive  slave  law.  How  I should  act  in  reference  to  that  matter  I do  not  know; 
I will  meet  it  when  it  comes ; but  I ask  the  Senator  whether  that  was  a part  of 
his  first  speech,  or  whether  it  is  a part  of  his  reply  ? 

Mr.  Douglas.  The  Senator  will  find  it  several  times  repeated  in  my  first 
speech,  and  the  question  asked  : Why  not  make  it  a crime  to  form  conspiracies 
and  combinations  to  run  off  fugitive  slaves,  as  well  as  to  run  off  horses,  or  any 
other  property?  I am  talking  about  conspiracies  which  are  so  common  in  all 
our  northern  States,  to  invade  and  enter,  through  their  agents,  the  slave  Stated, 
and  seduce  away  slaves  and  run  them  off  by  the  underground  railroad,  in  order 
to  send  them  to  Canada.  It  is  these  conspiracies  to  perpetrate  dime  with  im- 
punity, that  keep  up  the  irritation.  John  Brown  could  boast,  in  a public  lecture 
in  Cleveland,  that  he  and  his  band  had  been  engaged  all  the  winter  iu  stealing 
horses  and  running  them  off  from  the  slaveholders  in  Missouri,  and  that  the 
livery  stables  were  then  filled  with  stolen  horses,  and  yet  the  conspiracy  to  do  it 
could  not  be  punished. 

Sir,  I desire  a law  that  will  make  it  a crime,  punishable  by  imprisonment  in 
the  penitentiary,  after  conviction  iu  the  United  States  court,  to  make  a conspi- 
racy in  one  State,  against  the  people,  property,  government,  or  institutions,  of 
another.  Then  we  shall  get  at  the  root  of  the  evil.  I have  no  doubt  that  gen- 
tlemen on  the  other  side  will  vote  for  a law  which  pretends  to  comply  with  the 
guarantees  of  the  Constitution,  without  carrying  any  force  or  efficiency  in  its 
provisions.  I have  heard  men  abuse  the  fugitive  slave  law,  and  express  their 
willingness  to  vote  for  amendments ; but  when  you  came  to  the  amendments 
which  they  desired  to  adopt,  you  found  they  were  such  as  would  never  return 


12 


a fugitive  to  Lis  master.  They  would  go  for  any  fugitive  slave  law  that  had  a 
hole  iu  it  big  enough  to  let  the  negro  drop  through  and  escape;  but  none  that 
would  comply  with  the  obligations  of  the  Constitution.  So  we  shall  find  that 
side  of  the  Chamber  voting  for  a law  that  will,  in  terms,  disapprove  of  unlawful 
expeditions  against  neighboring  States,  without  being  efficient  in  affording  pro- 
tection. 

But  the  Senator  says  it  is  a part  of  the  policy  of  the  northern  Democracy  to 
represent  the  Republicans  as  being  hostile  to  southern  institutions.  Sir,  it  is  a 
part  of  the  policy  of  the  northern  Democracy,  as  well  as  their  duty,  to  speak  the 
truth  on  that  subject.  I did  not  suppose  that  any  man  would  have  the  audacity 
to  arraign  a brother-Senator  here  for  representing  the  Republican  party  as  dealing 
in  denunciation  and  insult  of  the  institutions  of  the  South.  Look  to  your  Phila- 
delphia platform,  where  you  assert  the  sovereign  power  of  Congress  over  the 
Territories  for  their  government,  and  demand  that  it  shall  be  exerted  against  those 
twin  relics  of  barbarism — polygamy  and  slavery. 

Mr.  Fessenden.  Let  me  suggest  to  the  Senator  that  he  is  entirely  changing 
the  issue  between  him  and  me.  I did  not  desire  to  say,  and  I did  not  say, 
that  the  Republicans  of  the  North  were  not  unfriendly  to  the  institution  of 
slavery.  I admitted  myself  that  I was;  I trust  they  all  are.  It  is  not  in  that 
respect  that  I accuse  the  Democracy  of  the  North  of  misrepresenting  the  posi- 
tion of  the  Republican  party.  It  was  in  representing  that  they  desired  to  inter- 
fere with  the  institution  in  the  southern  States.  That  is  the  ground — that  they 
were  opposed  to  southern  rights.  That  they  do  not  think  well  of  slavery  as  it 
exists  in  this  country,  I do  not  undertake  to  deny.  I do  not  know  that  southern 
gentlemen  expect  us  to  be  friendly  to  it.  I apprehend  that  they  would  not  think 
very  well  of  us  if  we  pretended  to  be  friendly  to  it.  If  we  were  friendly  to  the 
institution,  we  should  try  to  adopt,  we  certainly  should  not  oppose  it;  but  what 
I charged  upon  the  northern  Democracy  was,  that  they  misrepresented  our  posi- 
ti  m.  That  we  were  opposed  to  the  extension  of  slavery  over  free  territory,  that 
we  called  it  a relic  of  barbarism,  I admit;  but  I do  deny  that  the  Republican 
party,  or  the  Republicans  generally,  have  ever  exhibited  a desire  or  made  a move- 
ment towards  interfering  with  the  right  of  southern  men,  the  States,  or  any  con- 
stitutional rights  that  they  have  anywhere.  That  is  the  charge  I made. 

Mr.  Douglas.  Mr.  President,  for  what  purpose  does  the  Republican  party 
appeal  to  northern  passions  and  northern  prejudices  against  southern  institutions 
and  the  southern  people,  unless  it  is  to  operate  upon  those  institutions?  They 
represent  southern  institutions  as  no  better  than  polygamy  ; the  slaveholder  as 
no  better  than  the  polygamist;  and  complain  that  we  should  intimate  that  they 
did  not  like  to  associate  with  the  slaveholder  any  better  than  with  the  polyga- 
mist. I can  see  a monstrous  lowering  of  the  flag  in  the  Senator’s  speech  and 
explanation.  I would  respect  the  concession,  if  the  fact  was  acknowledged. 
This  thing  of  shrinking  from  position  that  every  northern  man  knows  to  be  true, 
and  arraigning  men  for  slander  for  telling  the  truth  to  them 

Mr.  Fessenden.  I know  it  not  to  be  true. 

Mr.  Douglas.  You  may  know  it  down  in  Maine,  but  you  do  not  know  it  in 
Illinois.  I have  always  noted  that  those  men  who  were  so  far  off  from  the  slave 
States  that  they  did  not  know  anything  about  them,  are  most  anxious  for  the 
fate  of  the  poor  slave.  Those  men  who  are  so  far  off  that  they  do  not  know 
what  a negro  is,  are  distressed  to  death  about  the  conditian  of  the  poor  negro. 
(Laughter.)  But,  sir,  go  into  the  border  States,  where  we  associate  across  the 
line,  where  the  civilities  of  society  are  constantly  interchanged  ; where  we  trade 
with  each  other,  and  have  social  and  commercial  intercourse,  and  there  you  will 
find  them  standing  by  each  other  like  a band  of  brothers.  Take  southern  Illi- 
nois, southern  Indiana,  southern  Ohio,  and  that  part  of  Pennsylvania  bordering 


13 


on  Maryland,  and  there  you  will  find  social  intercourse  ; commercial  intercourse; 
good  feeling;  because  those  people  know  the  condition  of  the  slave  on  the  op- 
posite side  of  the  line  ; but  just  in  proportion  as  you  recede  from  the  slave  States, 
just  in  proportion  as  the  people  are  ignorant  of  the  facts,  just  in  that  proportion, 
party  leaders  can  impose  on  their  sympathies  and  honest  prejudices. 

Sir,  I know  it  is  the  habit  of  the  Republican  party,  as  a party,  wherever  I 
have  met  them,  to  make  the  warfare  in  such  a way  as  to  try  to  rally  the  whole 
North  on  sectional  grounds  against  the  South.  1 know  that  is  to  be  the  issue, 
and  it  is  proven  by  the  speech  of  the  Senator  from  New  York,  which  I quoted 
before,  and  that  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  so  far  as  they  are  authority.  I happen  to  have 
those  speeches  before  me.  The  Senator  from  Maine  has  said  that  neither  of 
these  speeches  justified  the  conclusion  that  they  asserted,  that  the  free  States 
and  the  slave  States  cannot  coexist  permanently  in  the  same  Republic.  Let  us 
see  whether  they  do  or  not.  Mr.  Lincoln  says: 

“A  house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand.  I believe  this  Government  cannot  endure 
permanently,  half  slave  and  half  free.” 

Then  he  goes  on  to  say  they  must  all  be  one  thing  or  all  the  other,  or  else 
the  Union  cannot  endure.  What  is  the  meaning  of  that  language,  unless  it  is 
that  the  LTnion  cannot  permanently  exist,  half  slave  and  half  free — that  it  must 
all  become  one  thing  or  all  become  the  other  ? That  is  the  declaration.  The 
declaration  is  that  the  North  must  combine  as  a sectional  party,  and  carry  on 
the  agitation  so  fiercely,  up  to  the  very  borders  of  the  shareholding  States,  that 
the  master  dare  not  sleep  at  night  for  fear  that  the  robbers,  the  John  Browns, 
will  come  and  set  his  house  on  fire,  and  murder  the  women  and  children,  before 
morning.  It  is  to  surround  the  slaveholding  States  by  a cordon  of  free  States, 
to  use  the  language  of  the  Senator ; to  hem  them  in,  in  order  that  you  may 
smother  them  out.  The  Senator  avowed,  in  his  speech  to-day,  their  object  to 
be  to  hem  in  the  slave  States,  in  order  that  slavery  may  die  out.  How  die  out? 
Confine  it  to  its  present  limits  ; let  the  ratio  of  increase  go  on  by  the  laws  of 
nature  ; and  just  in  proportion  as  the  lands  in  the  slaveholding  States  wear  out, 
the  negroes  increase,  and  you  will  soon  reach  that  point  where  the  soil  will  not 
produce  enough  to  feed  the  slaves  ; then  hem  them  in,  and  let  them  starve  out — 
let  them  die  out  by  starvation.  That  is  the  policy— hem  them  in,  and  starve 
them  out.  Do  as  the  French  did  in  Algeria,  when  the  Arabs  took  to  the  cav- 
erns— smoke  them  out,  by  making  fires  at  the  mouths  of  the  caverns,  and  keep 
them  burning  until  they  die.  The  policy  is,  to  keep  up  this  agitation  along  the 
line;  make  slave  properly  insecure  in  the  border  States;  keep-the  master  con- 
stantly in  apprehension  of  assault,  till  he  will  consent  to  abandon  his  native 
country,  leaving  his  slaves  behind  him,  or  to  remove  them  further  South.  If 
you  can  force  Kentucky  thus  to  abolish  slavery,  you  make  Tennessee  the  border 
State,  and  begin  the  same  operation  upon  her. 

But,  sir,  let  us  see  whether  the  Senator  from  New  York  did  not  proclaim  the 
doctrine  that  free  States  and  slave  States  cannot  permanently  exist  in  the  same 
Republic.  He  said : 

“It  is  an  irrepressible  conflict  between  opposing  and  enduring  forces;  and  it  means 
that  tbe  United  States  must  and  will,  sooner  or  later,  become  either  entirely  a siavehold- 
ing nation  or  entirely  a free-labor  nation.” 

The  opposing  conflict  is  between  the  States ; the  Union  cannot  remain  as  it  now 
is,  part  free  and  part  slave.  The  conflict  between  free  States  and  slave  States  must 
go  on  until  there  is  not  a slave  State  left,  or  until  they  are  all  slave  States.  That 
is  the  declaration  of  the  Senator  from  New  York.  The  Senator  from  Maine 
tried  to  make  the  Senate  believe  that  I had  misrepresented  the  Senator  from 
New  York  and  Mr.  Lincoln,  of  Illinois,  in  stating  that  they  referred  to  a con- 
flict between  States.  He  said  that  all  they  meant  was  that  it  was  a conflict 


14 


between  free  labor  and  slave  labor  in  tbe  same  State.  Now,  sir,  let  me  submit 
to  that  man’s  candor  whether  he  will  insist  on  that  position.  They  both  say 
the  contest  will  go  on  until  the  States  become  all  free  or  all  slave.  Then,  when 
is  the  contest  going  to  end  ? When  they  become  all  slave?  Will  there  not  be 
the  same  conflict  between  free  labor  and  slave  labor,  after  every  State  has  be- 
come a slave  State,  that  there  is  now  ? If  that  was  the  meaning,  would  the 
conflict  between  qlave  labor  and  free  labor  cease  even  when  every  State  had 
become  slaveholding?  Have  not  all  the  slaveholding  States  a large  number  of 
free  laborers  within  heir  limits;  rnd  if  there  is  an  irrepressible  conflict  between 
free  labor  and  slave  labor,  will  you  remove  that  conflict  by  making  the  States 
all  slave?  Yet,  the  Senator  from  New  York  says  they  must  become  all  slave  or 
all  free  before  the  conflict  ceases.  Sir,  that  shows  that  the  Senator  from  New 
York  meant  what  I represented  him  as  meaning.  It  shows  that  a man  who 
knows  the  meaning  of  words,  and  has  the  heart  to  express  them  as  they  read, 
cannot  fail  to  know  that  that  was  the  meaning  of  those  Senators.  The  boldness 
with  which  a charge  of  misrepresentation  may  be  made  in  this  body  will  not 
give  character  to  it  when  it  is  contradicted  by  the  facts.  I dislike  to  have  to 
repel  these  charges  of  unfairness  and  misrepresentation;  yet  the  Senator  began 
with  a series  of  inuendos,  with  a series  of  complaints  of  misrepresentation,  show- 
ing that  he  was  afraid  to  meet  the  real  issues  of  his  party,  and  would  make  up 
for  that  by  personul  assaults  and  inuendos  against  the  opposite  party. 

He  goes  back  to  a speech  of  mine  in  opposition  to  the  Lecompton  constitu- 
tion, in  which  I said  that  if  you  would  send  that  constitution  back  and  let  the 
people  of  Kansas  vote  for  or  against  it,  if  they  voted  for  a free  State  or  a slave 
State  I would  go  for  it  without  caring  whether  they  voted  slavery  up  or  down. 
He  thinks  it  is  a great  charge  against  me  that  I do  not  care  whether  the  people 
vote  it  up  or  vote  it  down. 

Mr.  Fessenden.  The  Senator  is  mistaken  as  to  the  speech  to  which  I 
referred.  It  was  one  of  his  speeches  made  on  his  southern  tour,  that  I re- 
ferred to. 

Mr.  Douglas.  The  idea  is  taken  from  a speech  in  the  Senate — the  first 
speech  I made  against  the  Lecompton  constitution.  It  was  quoted  all  over  Illi- 
nois by  Mr.  Lincoln  in  the  canvass,  and  I repeated  the  sentiment  each  time  it 
was  quoted  against  me,  and  repeated  it  in  the  South  as  well  as  the  North.  I 
say  this  : if  the  people  of  Kansas  want  a slave  State,  it  is  their  business  and 
not  mine;  if  th'ey  want  a free  State,  they  have  a right  to  have  it;  and  hence,  I 
do  not  care,  so  far  as  regards  my  action,  whether  they  make  it  a free  State  or 
not;  it  is  none  of  my  business.  But  the  Senator  says  he  does  care,  he  has  a 
preference  between  freedom  and  slavery.  How  long  would  this  preference  last 
if  he  was  a sugar  planter  in  Louisiana,  residing  on  his  estate,  instead  of  living 
in  Maine  ? Sir,  I hold  the  doctrine  that  a wise  statesman  will  adapt  his  laws  to 
the  wants,  conditions,  and  interests  of  the  people  to  be  governed  by  them. 
Slavery  may  be  very  essential  in  one  climate  and  totally  useless  in  another.  If 
1 were  a citizen  of  Louisiana  I would  vote  for  retaining  and  maintaining 
slavery,  because  I believe  the  good  of  that  people  would  require  it.  As  a citi- 
zen of  Illinois  I am  utterly  opposed  to  it,  because  our  interests  would  not  be 
promoted  by  it.  I should  like  to  see  the  Abolitionist  who  would  go  and  live  in 
a southern  country  that  would  not  get  over  his  scruples  very  soon  and  have  a 
plantation  as  quickly  as  he  could  get  the  money  to  buy  it. 

I have  said  and  repeat  that  this  question  of  slavery  is  one  of  climate,  of  po- 
litical economy,  of  self-interest,  not  a question  of  legislation.  Where  ever  the 
climate,  the  soil,  the  health  of  the  country  are  such  that  it  cannot  be  cultivated 
by  white  labor,  you  will  have  African  labor,  and  compulsory  labor  at  that. 


15 


Wherever  white  labor  can  be  employed  cheapest  and  most  profitably,  there 
African  labor  will  retire  and  white  labor  will  take  its  place. 

You  cannot  force  slavery  by  all  the  acts  of  Congress  you  may  take  on  one 
inch  of  territory  against  the  will  of  the  people,  and  you  cannot  by  any  law  you 
can  make  keep  it  out  from  one  inch  of  American  territory  where  the  people 
want  it.  You  tried  it  in  Illinois.  By  the  ordinance  of  1Y87,  slavery  was  pro- 
hibited, and  yet  our  people,  believing  that  slavery  would  be  profitable  to  them, 
established  hereditary  servitude  in  the  Territory  by  territorial  legislation,  in  de- 
fiance of  your  Federal  ordinance.  We  maintained  slavery  there  just  so  long  as 
Congress  said  we  should  not  have  it,  and  we  abolished  it  at  just  the  moment 
you  recognized  us  as  a State,  with  the  right  to  do  as  we  pleased.  When  we 
established  it,  it  was  on  the  supposition  that  it  was  our  interest  to  do  so.  When 
we  abolished  it,  we  did  so  because  experience  proved  that  it  was  not  our  interest 
to  have  it.  I hold  that  slavery  is  a question  of  political  economy,  to  be  deter- 
mined by  climate,  by  soil,  by  production,  by  self-interest,  and  hence  the  people 
to  be  affected  by  it  are  the  most  impartial  jury  to  try  the  fact  whether  their 
interest  requires  them  to  have  it  or  not. 

But  the  Senator  thinks  it  is  a great  crime  for  me  to  say  that  I do  not  care 
whether  they  have  it  or  not.  I care  just  this  far:  I want  every  people  to  have 
that  kind  of  Government,  that  system  of  laws,  that  class  of  institutions,  which 
will  best  promote  their  welfare,  and  I want  them  to  decide  for  themselves ; and 
so  that  they  decide  it  to  suit  themselves,  I am  satisfied,  without  stopping  to  in- 
quire or  caring  which  way  they  decide  it.  That  is  what  I meant  by  that 
declaration,  and  I am  ready  to  stand  by  it. 

The  Senator  has  made  the  discovery — I suppose  it  is  very  new,  for  he  would 
not  repeat  anything  that  was  old,  after  calling  me  to  account  for  expressing  an 
idea  that  had  been  heard  of  before — that  I re-opened  the  agitation  by  bringing 
in  the  Nebraska  bill  in  1854  ; and  he  tries  to  put  the  responsibility  of  the  crimes 
perpetrated  by  his  political  friends,  and  in  violation  of  the  law,  upon  the  pro- 
visions of  the  law  itself.  We  passed  a bill  to  allow  the  people  of  Kansas  to  form 
and  regulate  their  own  institutions  to  suit  themselves.  No  sooner  had  we  placed 
that  law  on  the  statute-book,  than  his  political  friends  formed  conspiracies  and 
combinations  in  the  different  New  England  States  to  import  a set  of  desperadoes 
into  Kansas  to  control  the  elections  and  the  institutions  of  that  country  in  fraud 
of  the  law  of  Congress. 

Sir,  I desire  to  make  the  legislation  broad  enough  to  reach  conspiracies  and 
combinations  of  that  kind  ; and  I would  also  include  combinations  and  con- 
spiracies on  the  other  side.  My  object  is  to  establish  firmly  the  doctrine  that 
each  State  is  to  do  its  own  voting,  establish  its  own  institutions,  make  its  own 
laws  without  interference,  directly  or  indirectly,  from  any  outside  power.  The 
gentleman  says  that  is  squatter  sovereignty.  Call  it  squatter  sovereignty,  call 
it  popular  sovereignty,  call  it  what  you  please,  it  is  the  great  principle  of  self- 
government  on  which  this  Union  was  formed,  aud  by  the  preservation  of  which 
alone  it  can  be  maintained.  It  is  the  right  of  the  people  of  every  State  to  govern 
themselves  and  make  their  own  laws,  and  be  protected  from  outside  violence  or 
interference,  directly  or  indirectly.  Sir,  I confess  the  object  of  the  legislation 
I contemplate  is  to  put  down  this  outside  interference;  it.  is  to  repress  this 
“ irrepressible  conflict it  is  to  bring  the  Government  back  to  the  true  principles 
of  the  Constitution,  and  let  each  people  in  this  Union  rest  secure  in  the  enjoy- 
ment of  domestic  tranquility  without  apprehension  from  neighboring  States.  I 
will  not  occupy  further  time. 


SPEECH 


OR 


THE  INTRODUCTION  OF  A RESOLUTION 


RELATIVE  TO  THE 

INVASION  OF  STATES. 


DELIVERED  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  JANUARY  23,  I860. 


WASHINGTON: 
1 8 6 0 . 


4 


of  a military  force  in  time  of  peace  is  to  insure  domestic  tranquility  against  violence  or  aggres- 
sion irom  without.  The  States  of  this  Union  would  possess  that  power,  were  it  not  for  the 
restraints  imposed  upon  them  by  the  Federal  Constitution.  When  that  Constitution  was 
made,  the  states  surrendered  to  the  Federal  Government  the  power  to  raise  and  support 
armies,  and  the  power  to  provide  and  maintain  navies,  and  not  only  thus  surrendered  the 
means  ol  protection  trom  invasion,  but  consented  to- a prohibition  upon  themselves  which 
declares  that  no  State  shall  keep  troops  dr  vessels-of-war  in  time  of  peace. 

I he  question  now  recurs,  whether  the  States  of  this  Union  are  in  that  helpless  condition, 
v'.i.h  their  hands  tied  by  the  Constitution,  stripped  cf  all  means  of  repelling  assaults  and 
maintaining  their  existence,  without  a guaranty  from  the  Federal  Government,  to  protect 
them  against  violence.  If  the  people  of  this  country  shall  settle. d«,r»  u»tw  conviction 
that  there  is  no  power  in  the  Federal  Government  under  the  Constitution  to  protect  each  and 
every  State  from  violence,  from  aggression,  from  invasion,  they  will  demand  that  the  cord  be 
severed,  and  that  the  weapons  be  restored  to  their  hands  with  which  they  ma}?  defend  them- 
selves. This  inquiry  involves  the  question  of  the  perpetuity  of  the  Union.  The  means  of 
defence,  the  means  of  repelling  assaults,  the  means  of  providing  against  invasion,  must  exist 
as  a condition  of  the  safety  of  the  States  and  the  existence  of  the  Union. 

Now,  sir,  I hope  to  be  able  to  demonstrate- that  there  is  no  wrong  in  this  Union  for  which 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  lias  n*ot  provided  a remedy.  I believe,  and  I hope  I 
shall  be  able  to  maintain,  that  a remedy  is  furnished  for  every  wrong  .which  can  be  perpetrated 
within  the  Union,  if  the  Federal  Government  performs  its  whole  duty.  I think  it  is  clear,  on 
a careful  examination  of  the  Constitution,  that  the  power  is  conferred  upon  Congress,  first,  to 
provide  for  repelling  invasion  from  foreign  countries;  and,  secondly,  to  protect  each  State  of 
this  Union  against  invasion  from  any  other  State,  Territory,  or  place,  within  the  jurisdiction 
oi  tlie  United  States.  I will  first  turn  your  attention,  sir,  to  the  power  conferred  upon  Con- 
gress to  protect  the  United  States — including  States,  Territories,  and  the  District  of  Columbia; 
including  every  inch  of  ground  within  our  limits  and  jurisdiction — against  foreign  invasion. 
In  the  eighth  section  of  the  first  article  of  the  Constitution,  you  find  that  Congress  has 
power — 

1 ■ To  raise  and  support  armies ; to  provide  and  maintain  a navy ; to  make  rules  for  tile  Government  and  vegu- 
!ation  of  the  land  and  naval  forces;  to  provide  for  calling  forth  fie  militia  to  execute  the  laws  of  the  Union, 
suppress  insurrections,  and  repel  invasions.” 

These,  various  clauses  confer  upon  Congress  power  to  use  the  whole  military  force  of  the 
country  for  the  purposes  specified  in  the  Constitution.  They  shall  provide  for  the  execution 
of  the  laws  of  the  Union  ; and,  secondly,  suppress  insurrections.  The  insurrections  there 
referred  to  are  insurrections  against  the  authority  cf  the  United  States — insurrections  against 
a State  authority  being  provided  for  in  a subsequent  section,  in  which  the  United  States  can- 
not interfere,  except  upon  the  application  of  the  State  authorities.  The  invasion  which  is  to 
be  repelled  by  this  clause  of  the  Constitution  is  an  invasion  of  the  United  States  The  lan- 
guage is,  Congress  shall  have  power  to  “ repel  invasions.”  That  gives  the  authority  to  repe'l 
the  invasion,  no  matter  whether  the  enemy  shall  land  within  the  limits  of  Virginia,  within  the 
District  of  Columbia,  within  the  Territory  of  New  Mexico,  or  anywhere  else  within  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  United  States.  The  power  to  protect  every  portion  of  the  country  against 
invasion  from  foreign  nations  having  thus  been  specifically  conferred,  the  framers  of  the  Con- 
stitution then  proceeded  to  make  guarantees  for  the  protection  of  each  of  the  Stales  by  Federal 
authority.  I will  read  the  fourth  section  of  the  fourth  article  of  the  Constitution  : 

“The  United  Stales  shall  guaranty  to  every  State  in  this  Union  a republican  form  of  government,  and  shall 
protect  each  of  them  against  invasion  ; and,  on  application  of  the  Legislature,  or  of  the  Executive,  (when  the 
Legislature  cannot  be  convened,)  against  domestic  violence.”  f 

This  clause  contains  three  distinct  guarantees  : first,  the  United  States  shall  guaranty  to 
every  State  in  this  Union  a republican  form  of  government ; second,  the  United  States  shall 
rotect  each  of  them  against  invasion  ; third,  the  United  States  shall,  on  application  of  the 


5 


Legislature,  or  of  the  Executive,  when  the  Legislature  cannot  be  convened,  protect  them 
against  domestic  violence.  Now,  sir,  I submit  to  you  Whether  it  is  not  clear,  from  the  very 
language  of  the  Constitution,  that  this  clause  %vas  inserted  for  the  purpose  of  making  it  the 
duty  of  the  Federal  Government  to  prctdtt  each  of  the  States  against  invasion  from  any  other 
State,  Territory,  or  place  Within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States?  For  what  other  pur- 
purpose  was  the  clause  inserted?  The  power  and  duty  of  protection-as  against  foreign  nations 
had  already  been  provided  for.  This  clause  occurs  among  the  guarantees  from  the  United 
States  to  each  State,  for  the  benefit  of  each  State,  for  the  protection  of  each  State,  and  neces- 
sarily from  other  Stats s,  inasmuch  as  the  guaranty  had  been  given  previously  as  against 
foreign  nations. 

If  any  further  authority  is  necessa  ry  to  show  that  such  is  the  true  construction  of  the-Con- 
-stitution,  it  may  be  found  in  the  forty-third  number  of  the  Federalist,  written  by  James 
Madison.  Mr.  Madison  quotes  the  clause  of  the  Constitution  which  I have  read,  giving  these 
three  guarantees  ; and,  after  discussing  the  one  guarantying  to  each  State  a republican  form 
of  government,  proceeds  to  consider  the  second,  which  makes  if  the  duty  of  the  United  States 
to  protect  each  of  the  States  against  invasion.  Here  is  what  Mr.  Madison  says  upon  that 
subject  : 

“ A protection  against  invasion  is  daf  from  every  society  to  the  iiarts  composing  it.  Tile, latitude  of  the  expres- 
sion here  used  seems  to  secure  each  State,  not  only  against  foreign  hostility,  but  against  ambitious  or  vindictive 
enterprises  of  its  more  powerful  neighbors.  The  history  both  of  ancient  and  modern  confederacies  proves  that 
the  weaker  members  of  the  Union  ought  not  to  be  insensible  to  the  policy  of  this  article. 

This  number  of  the  Federalist,  like  all  others  of  that  celebrated  work,  was  written  after 
the  Constitution  was  made,  and  before  it  was  ratified  by  the  States,  and  with  a view  to  secur- 
ing its  ratification : hence  the  people  of  the  several  States,  when  they  ratified  this  instrument, 
knew  that  this  clause  was  intended  to  bear  the  construction  which  I now  place  upon  it.  It 
was  intended  to  make  it  the  duty  of  every  society  to  protect  each  ofits  parts;  the  duty  of  the 
Federal  Government  to  protect  each  of  the  States;  and,  he  says,  the  smaller  States  ought 
not  to  be  insensible  to  the  policy  of  this  article  of  the  Constitution. 

Then,  sir,  if  it  be  made  the  imperative  duty  of  the  Federal  Government,  by  the  express 
provision  of  the  Constitution,  to  protect  each  of  the  Slates  against  invasion  or  violence  from 
the  other  States,  or  From  combinations  of  desperadoes  within  their  limits,  it  necessarily  follows 
that  it  is  the  duty  of  Congress  to  pass  ail  laws  necessary  and  proper  to  render  that  guaranty 
effectual.  While  Congress,  in  the  early  history  of  the  government,  did  provide  legislation 
which  it  supposed  to  be  ample  to  protect  the  United  States  against  invasion  from  foreign 
countries  andj.be  Indian  tribes,  they  have  failed,  to  this  time,  to  make  any  law  for  the 
protection  of  each  of  the  States  against  invasion  from  within  the  limits  of  the  Union.  I am 
unable  to  account  for  this  omission  ; but  I presume  the  reason  is  to  be  found  in  the  fact  that 
no  Congress  ever  dreamed  that  such  legislation  would  ever  become  necessary  for  the  pro- 
tection of  one  State  of  this  Union  against  invasion  and  violence  from  her  sister  States.  Who 
until  the  Harper’s  Ferry  outrage,  ever  conceived  that  American  citizens  could  be  so  forgetful 
of  their  dutie  to  themselves,  to  their  county,  to  the  Conti  tion,  as  to  plan  an  vasio 
anether  State,  with  the  view  of  inciting  servile  insurrection,  murder,  treason,  and  every  other 
crime  that  disgraces  humanity?  While,  therefore,  no  blame  can  justly  be  attached  to  our 
predecessors  in  failing  to  provide  the  legislation  necessary  to  render  this  guaranty  of  the 
Constitution  effectual;  still,  since  the  experience  of  last  year,  we  cannot  stand  justified  ir 
omitting  longer  to  perform  this  imperative  duty. 

The  question  then  remaining  is,  what  legislation  is  necessary  and  proper  to  render  this 
guaranty  of  the  Constitution  effectual?  I presume  there  will  be.  very  little  difference  of 


6 


opinion  that  it  will  be  necessary  to  place  the  whcle'vnilitary  power  of  the  Government  at  the 
dispssal  of  the  President,  under  proper  guards  and  restrictions  against  abuse,  to  repel  and 
suppress  invasion  when  the  hostile  force  shall  be  actually  in  the  field  But,  sir,  that  is  not 
sufficient.  Such  legislation  would  not  be  a full  compliance  with  this  guaranty  of  the  Consti- 
tution. The  framers  of  that  instrument  meant  more  when  they  gave  the  guaranty.  Mark  the 
difference  in  language  between  the  provision  for  protecting  the  United  States  against  inva- 
sion and  that  for  protecting  the  States.  When  it  provided  for  protecting  the  United  States, 
it  said  Congress  shall  have  power  to  “ repel  invasion.”  When  it  came  to  make  this  guaranty 
to  the  States  it  changed  the  language  and  said  the  United  States  shall  “ protect  ” each  of  the 
States  against  invasion.  In  the  one  instance,  the  duty  of  the  Government  is  to  repel ; in  the 
other,  the  guaranty  is  that  they  will  protect.  In  other  words,  the  United  States  are  not 
permitted  to  wait  until  the  enemy  shall  be  upon  your  borders  ; until  the  invading  army  shall 
have  been  organized  and  drilled  and  placed  in  march  with  a view  to  the  invasion;  but  they 
must  pass  all  law's  necessary  and  proper  to  insure  protection  and  domestic  tranquillity  to  each 
State  and  Territory  of  this  Union  against  invasion  or  hostilities  from  other  States  and  Ter- 
ritories. » 

Then,  sir,  I hold  that  it  is  not  only  necessary  to  use  the  military  power  when  the  actual 
case  of  invasion  shall  occur,  but  to  authorize  the  judicial  department  of  the  Government  to 
suppress  all  conspiracies  and  combinations  in  the  several  States  with  intent  to  invade  a State., 
or  molest  or  disturb  its  government,  its  peace,  its  citizens,  its  property,  or  its  institutions. 
You  must  punish  the  conspiracy,  tho  combination  with  iutent  to  do  the  act,  and  then  you 
will  suppress  it  in  advance.  There  is  no  principle  more  familiar  to  the  legal  profession  than 
that  wherever  it  is  proper  to  declare  an  act  to  he  a crime,  it  is  proper  to  punish  a conspiracy 
or  combination  will)  intent  to  perpetrate  the  act.  Look  upon  your  statute-books,  and  1 pre- 
sume you  will  find  an  enactment  to  punish  the  counterfeiting  of  the  coin  of  the  United 
States  ; and  then  another  section  to  puuish  a man  for  having  counterfeit  coin  in  his  posses- 
sion to ilh  inlent  to  pass  it  ; and  another  section  to  punish  him  for  haviug  the  moulds,  or  dies  or 
instruments  for  counterfeiting,  iciik  intent  to  use  them.  This  is  a familiar  principle  in  legis- 
lative and  judicial  proceedings.  If  the  act  of  invasion  is  criminal,  the  conspiracy  to  invade 
should  also  be  made  criminal.  If  it  be  unlawful  and  illegal  to  invade  a State,  and  run  off" 
fugitive  slaves,  why  not  make  it  unlawful  to  form  conspiracies  and  combinations  in  the 
several  States  with  intent  to  do  the  act?  We  have  been  told  that  a notorious  man  who  has 
recently  suffered  death  for  his  crimes  upon  the  gallows,  boasted  in  Cleveland,  Ohio,  in  a 
public  lecture,  a year  ago,  that  he  had  then  a body  of  men  employed  in  running  away 
horses  from  the  slaveholders  of  Missouri,  and  pointed  to  a livery  stable  in  Cleveland  which 
was  full  of  the  stolen  horses  at  that  time. 

I think  'it  is  within  our  competency,  and  consequently  our  duty,  to  pass  a law  making 
every  conspiracy  or  combination  in  any  State  or  Territory  of  this  Union  to  invade  another 
with  intent  to  steal  or  run  away  property  of  any  kind,  whether  it  bo  negroes,  or  horses,  or 
property  of  any  other  description,  into  another  State,  a crime;  and  punish  the  conspirators 
by  indictment  in  the  United  States  courts  and  confinement  in  the  prisons  or  penitentiaries  of 
the  State  or  Territory  where  the  conspiracy  may  be  formed  and  quelled.  Sir,  I would  carry 
these  provisions  of  law  as  far  as  our  constitutional  power  will  reach.  I would  make  it  a 
crime  to  form  conspiracies  with  a view  of  invading  States  or  Territories  to  control  elections, 
whether  they  be  under  the  garb  of  Emigrant  Aid  Societies  of  New  England  or  Blue  Lodges 
of  Missouri.  [Applause  in  the  galleries.]  In  other  words,  this  provision  of  the  Constitu- 
tion means  more  than  the  mere  repelling  of  an  invasion  when  the  invading  army  shall  reach 
the  border  of  a State.  The  language  is,  it  shall  protect  the  State  against  invasion  ; the 
meaning  of  which  is,  to  use  the  language  of  the  preamble  to  the  Constitution,  to  insure  to 
each  State  domestic  tranquility  against  external  violence.  There  can  be  no  peace,  there 
Gan  be  no  prosperity,  there  can  be  no  safety  in  any  c^jimunity,  unless  it  is  secured  against 


7 


violence  from  abroad.  Why,  sir,  it  has  been  a question  seriously  mooted  in  Europe,  whether 
it  was  not  the  duty  of  England,  a Power  foreign  to  Prance,  to  pass  laws  to  punish  conspira- 
cies in  England  against  the  lives  of  the  princes  of  France.  I shall  not  argue  the  question  of 
comity  between  foreign  States.  I predicate  my  argument  upon  the  Constitution  by  which 
we  are  governed,  and  which  we  have  sworn  to  obey,  and  demand  that  the  Constitution  be 
executed  in  good  faith,  so  as  to  punish  and  suppress  every  combination,  every  conspiracy, 
either  to  invade  a State  or  to  molest  its  inhabitants,  or  to  disturb  its  property,  or  to  subvert 
its  institutions  and  its  government.  I believe  this  can  be  effectually  done  by  authorizing  the 
United  States  courts  in  the  several  States  to  take  jurisdiction  of  the  offence,  and  punish  the 
violation  of  the  law  with  appropriate  punishment. 

It  cannot  be  said  that  the  time  has  not  yet  arrived  for  such  legislation.  It  canuot  be  said 
with  truth  that  the  Plarper’s  Ferry  case  will  not  be  repeated,  or  is  not  in  danger  of  repeti- 
tion. It  is  only  necessary  to  inquire  into  the  causes  which  produced  the  Harper’s  Ferry 
outrage,  and  ascertain  whether  those  causes  are  yet  in  active  operation,  and  then  you  can 
determine  whether  there  is  any  ground  for  apprehension  that  that  invasion  will  be  repeated . 
Sir,  what  were  the  causes  which  produced  the  Harper’s  Ferry  outrage  ? Without  stopping 
to  adduce  evidence  in  detail,  I have  no  hesitation  in  expressing  my  firm  and  deliberate  con- 
viction that  the  Harper’s  Ferry  crime  was  the  natural,  logical,  inevitable  result  of  the  doc- 
trines and  teachings  of  the  Republican  party,  as  explained  and  enforced  In  their  platform, 
their  partisan  presses,  their  pamphlets  and  books,  and  especially  in  the  speeches  of  their 
leaders  in  and  out  of  Congress.  [Applause  in  the  galleries.] 

Mr.  MASON.  I trust  the  order  of  the  Senate  will  be  preserved.  I am  sure  it  is  only  ne- 
cessary to  suggest  to  the  Presiding  Officer  the  indispensable  necessity  of  preserving  the  order 
of  the  Senate  ; and  I give  notice  that,  if  it  is  disturbed  again,  I shall  insist  upon  the  galleries 
being  closed  entirely. 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  Mr.  President— 

The  VICE  PRESIDENT.  The  Senator  will  pause  for  a single  moment.  It  is  impossible 
for  the  Chair  to  preserve  order  without  the  concurrence  of  the  vast  assembly  in  the  galleries. 
He  trusts  that  there  will  be  no  occasion  to  make  a reference  to  this  subject  again. 

Mr.  TOOMBS.  I hope  that  the  Presiding  Officer  will  place  officers  in  the  galleries,  and 
put  a stop  to  this  tiling.  It  is  a very  bad  sign  of  the  times.  It  is  unbecoming  this  body,  or 
the  deliberations  of  any  free  people. 

The  VICE  PRESIDENT.  The  Presiding  Officer  has  not  the  force  at  his  command  to 
place  officers  in  the  gallery. 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  If  the  Senate  will  pardon  me  for  a digression  an  instant,  I was  about  to 
suggest  to  the  Presiding  Officer  that  I thought  it  would  be  necessary  to  place  officers  in  differ- 
ent parts  of  the  gallery,  with  instructions  that  if  they  saw  any  person  giving  any  signs  of 
approbation  cr  disapprobation  calculated  tp  disturb  our  proceedings,  they  should  instantly 
put  the  guilty  person  out  of  the  gallery. 

The  VICE  PRESIDENT.  That  has  been  done. 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  I was  remarking  that  I considered  this  outrage  at  Harper’s  Ferry  as  the 
logical,  natural  consequence  of  the  teachings  and  doctrines  of  the  Republican  party.  I am 
not  making  this  statement  for  the  purpose  of  crimination  or  partisan  effect.  I desire  to  call 
the  attention  of  members  of  that  party  to  a reconsideration  of  the  doctrines  that  they  are  in 
the  habit  of  enforcing,  with  a view  to  a fair  judgment  whether  they  do  not  lead  directly  to 
those  consequences  on  the  part  of  those  deluded  persons  who  think  that  all  they  say  is  meant 
in  real  earnest  and  ought  to  be  carried  out.  Tile  great  principle  that  underlies  the  organiza- 
tion of  the  Republican  party  is  violent,  irreconcilable,  eternal  warfare  upon  the  institution 
of  American  slavery,  with  the  view  of  its  ultimate  extinction  throughout  the  land  ; sectional 
war  is  to  be  waged  until  the  cotton  fields  of  the  South  shall  be  cultivated  by  free  labor,  or  the 
rye  fields  of  New  York  and  Massachussetts  shall  be  cultivated  by  slave  labor.  In  furtherance 


8 


of  this  article  of  their  creed,  you  find  their  political  organization,  not  only  sectional  in  its 
location,  but  one  whose  vitallity  consists  in  appeals  to  northern  passion,  northern  prejudice, 
northern  ambition  against  southern  States,  southern  institutions,  and  southern  people, 
have  had  some  experience  in  fighting  "this  element  within  the  last  few  years, and  I find  that, 
the  source  of  their  power  consists  in  exciting  the  prejudices  and  the  passions  of  the  northern 
section  against  those  of  the  southern  section.  They  not  only  attempt  to  excite  .the  North 
against  the  South,  but  they  invite  the  South  to  assail  and  abuse  and  traduce  the  North 
Southern  abuse,  by  violent  men,  of  northern  statesmen  and  the  northern  people,  is  essentia', 
to  the  triumph  of  the  Republican  cause.  Hence,  the  course  of  argument  which  we  have  to 
meet  is  not  only  repelling-  the  appeals  to  northern  passion  and  prejudice,  but  we  have  to  en- 
counter their  appeals  to  southern  men  to  assail  us,  in  order  that  they  may  justify  their  assaults 
upon  the  plea  of  self-defence. 

Sir,  when  I returned  home  in  1858  for  the  purpcse  of  canvassing  Illinois,  with  a view  to 
a re-election,!  had  to  meet  this  issue  of  the  “irrepressible  conflict.”  It  is  true  that  the  Senator 
from  New  York  had  not  then  made  his  Rochester  speech,  and  did  not  for  four  months  after- 
wards. It  is  true  that  he  had  not  given  the  doctrine  that  precise  name  and  form  ; but  the 
principle  was  in  existence,  and  had  been  proclaimed  by  the  ablest  and  the  most  clear-headed 
men  of  the  party.  I will  call  your  attention,  sir,  to  a single  passage  from  a speech,  to  show 
tile  language  in  which  this  doctrine  was  stated  in  Illinois  before  it  received  the  name  of  the 
“ irrepressible  conflict.”  The  Republican  party  assembled  in  State  com-enticn  in  June,  1858. 
in  Illinois,  and  unanimously  adopted  Abraham  Lincoln  as  their  candidate  for  United  Slates 
Senator.  Mr.  Lincoln  appeared  before  the  convention,  accepted  the  nomination,  and  made 
a speech — which  had  been  previously  written  and  agreed  to  in  caucus  by  most  of  the  leaders 
of  the  party.  I will  read  a single  extract  from  that  speech  : 

“ In  my  opinion,  it  [the  slavery  agitation]  will  not  cease  until  a crisis  shall  have  been  reached  and  passed. 
‘ A house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand.’  I believe  this  government  cannot  endure  permanently,  halt 
slave  and  half  free.  I.  do  not  expect  the  house  to  fall,  but  I do  expect  it  will  cease  to-be  divided,  rt  will 
become  ail  one  thing  or  all  the  ether.  Either  the  opponents  of  slavery  will  arrest  the  further  spread  of  it,  and 
place  it  where  the  public  mind  shall  rest  in  the  belief  that  it  is  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction,  or  its  ad- 
vocates will  push  forward  till  it  shall  become  alike  lawful  in  ail  the  States — old  as  well  as  new,  North  as  well 
as  South.” 

Sir,  the  moment  I landed  upon  the  soil  of  Illinois,  at  a vast  gathering  of  many  thousands 
of  my  constituents  to  welcome  me  home,  I read  that  passage,  and  took  direct  issue  with  the 
doctrine  contained  in  it  as  being  revolutionary  and  treasonable,  and  inconsistent  with  the  per- 
petuity of  this  Republic.  That  is  not  merely  the  individual  opinion  of  Mr.  Lincoln  ; nor  is 
it  the  individual  opinion  merely  of  the  Senator  from  New  York,  who  four  months  afterwards 
asserted  the  same  doctrine  in  different  language  ; but,  so  far  as  I know,  it  is  the  general 
opinion  of  the  members  of  the  Abolition  or  Republican  party.  They  tell  the  people  of  the 
North  that  unless  they  rally  as  one  man  under  a sectional  banner,  and  make  war  upon  the 
South  with  a view  to  the  ultimate  extinction  of  slavery,  slavery  will  overrun  the  whole  North 
and  fasten  itself  upon  all  the  free  States.  They  then  tell  the  South,  unless  you  rally  as  one 
man,  binding  the  whole  southern  people  into  a sectional  party,  and  establish  slavery  all  over 
the  free  States,  the  inevitable  consequence  will  be  that  we  shall  abolish  it  in  the  slaveholding 
States.  The  same  doctrine  is  held  by  the  Senator  from  New  York  in  his  Rochester  speech- 
He  tells  us  that  the  States  must  all  become  free,  or  all  become  slave  ; that  the  South,  in  other 
words,  must  conquer  and  subdue  the  North,  or  the  North  must  triumph  over  the  South  and 
drjve  slavery  from  within  its  limits.  Y 

Mr.  President,  in  order  to  show  that  I have  not  misinterpreted  the  position  of  the  Senator 
from  New  York,  in  notifying  the  South  that,  if  they  wish  to  maintain  slavery  within  their 
limits,  they  must  also  fasten  it  upon  the  northern  States,  I will  read  an  extract  from  his 
Piochester  speech  : 


9 


‘•'It  is  an  irrepressible  conflict  between  opposing  and  enduring  forces  ; arid  it  means  that  the  United  States 
must  and  will,  sooner  or  later,  become  either  entirely  a siaveholding  nation  or  entirely  a free-labor  nation. 
Either  the  cotton  and  rice  fields  of  South  Carolina,  and  the  sugar  plantations  of  Louisiana,  will  ultimately  be 
tilled  by  free  labor,  and  Charleston  and  New  Orleans  become  marts  for  legitimate  merchandise  alone,  or  else 
the  rye  fields  and  wheat  fields  of  Massachusetts  and  New  York  must  again  be  surrendered  by  their  farmers  to 
slave  culture  and  to  the  production  of  slaves,  and  Boston  arid  New  York  become  once  more  markets  for  trade 
in  the  bodies  and  souls  of  men.” 

Thus,  sir,  you  perceive  that  the  theory  of  the  Republican"  party  is,  that  there  is' a conflict 
between  two  different  systems  of  institutions,  in  the  respective  classes  of  States — not  a con- 
flict in  the  same  State,  but  an  irrepressible  conflict  between  the  free  States  and  the  slave 
States  ; and  they  argue  that  these  two  systems  of  States  cannot  permanently  exist  in  the 
same  Union  ; that  the  sectional  warfare  must  continue  to  rage  and  increase  with  increasing 
fury  until  the  free  States  shall  surrender,  or  the  slave  States  shall  be  subdued.  Hence,  while 
they  appeal  to  the  passions  of  our  own  sections,  their  object  is  to  alarm  the  people  of  the  other 
section,  and  drive  them  to  madness,  with  the  hope  that  they  will  invade  our  rights  as  an  ex- 
cuse for  some  of  our  people  to  carry  on  aggressions  upon  their  rights.  I appeal  to  the  candor 
of  Senators  whether  this  is  not  a fair  exposition  of  the  tendeney  of  the  doctrines  proclaimed 
by  the  Republican  party.  The  creed  of  that  party  is  founded  upon  the  theory  that,  because 
slavery  is  not  desirable  in  our  States,  it  is  not  desirable  anywhere  ; because  free  labor  is  a 
good  thing  with  ns,  it  must  be  the  best  thing  everywhere.  In  other  words,  the  creed  of  their 
party  rests  upon  the  theory  that  there  must  be  uniformity  in  the  domestic  institutions  and  in- 
ternal polity  of  the  several  States  of  this  Union.  There,  in  my  opinion,  is  the  fundamental 
error  upon  which  their  whole  system  rests.  In  the  Illinois  canvass  I asserted,  and  now 
repeat,  that  uniformity  in  the  domestic  institutions  of  the  different  States  is  neither  possible 
nor  desirable.  That  is  the  very  issue  upon  which  I conducted  the  canvass  at  home,  and  it  is 
the  question  which  I desire  to  present  to  the  Senate.  I repeat,  that  uniformity  in  the  domestic 
institutions  of  the  different  States  is  neither  possible  nor  desirable. 

Was  such  the  doctrine  of  the  framers  of  the  Constitution?  I wish  the  country  to  bear  in 
mind  that  when  the  Constitution  was  adopted  the  Union  consisted  of  thirteen  States,  twelve 
of  which  were  siaveholding  States,  and  one  a free  State.  Suppose  this  doctrine  of  uniformity 
on  the  slavery  question  had  prevailed  in  the  Federal  convention,  do  the  gentlemen  on  that 
side  of  the  House  think  that  freedom  would  have  triumphed  over  slavery?  Do  they  imagine 
that  the  one  free  State  would  have  outvoted  the  twelve  slaveholding  States,  and  thus  have 
abolished  slavery  throughout  the  land  by  a constitutional  provision  ? On  the  contrary,  if  the 
test  had  then  been  made,  if  this  doctrine  of  uniformity  on  the  slavery  question  had  then  been 
proclaimed  and  believed  in,  with  the  twelve  slaveholding  States  against  one  free  State,  would 
it  not  have  resulted  in  constitutional  provision  fastening  slavery  irrevocably  upon  every 
inch  of  American  soil,  North  as  well  as  South  ? W as  it  quite  fair  in  those  days  for  the  friends 
of  free  institutions  to  claim  that  the  Federal  Government  must  not  touch  the  question,  but 
must  leave  the  people  of  each  State  to  do  as  they  pleased,  until  under  tjie  operation  of  that, 
principle  they*  secured  the  majority,  and  then  wield  that  majority  to  abolish  slavery  in  the 
other  States  of  the  Union? 

Sir,  if  uniformity  in  respect  to  domestic  institutions' had  been  deemed  desirable  when  the 
Constitution  was  adopted,  there  was  another  mods  by  which  it  could  have  been  obtained. 
The  natural  mode  of  obtaining  uniformity  was  to  have  blotted  out  the  State  governments,  to 
have  abolished  the  State  Legislatures,  to  haye  conferred  upon  Congress  legislative  power 
over  the  municipal  and  domestic  concerns  of  the  people  of  all  the  States,  as  well  as  upon 
Federal  questions  affecting  the  whole  Union  ; and  if  this  doctrine  of  uniformity  had  been 
entertained  and  favored  by  the  framers  of  the  Constitution,  such  would  have  been  the  result. 
But,  sir,  the  framers  of  that  instrument  knew  at  thatjday,  as  well  as  we  now  know,  that  in 
a country  as  bread  as  this,  with  so  great  a variety  of  climate,  of  soil,  and  of  production, 
there  must  necessarily  be  a corresponding-  diversity  of  institutions  and  domestic  regulations, 


10 


adapted  to  tho  wants  and  necessities  of  each  locality.  The  framers  of  the  Constitution  knew 
that  the  laws  and  institutions  which  were  well  adapted  to  the  mountains  and  valleys  of  New 
England  were  ill  suited  to  the  rice  plantations  and  cotton  fields  of  the  Carolinas.  They  knew 
that  our  liberties  depended  upon  reserving  the  right  to  the  people  of  each  State  to  make  their 
own  laws  and  establish  their  own  institutions,  and  control  them  at  pleasure,  without  inter- 
ference from  tho  Federal  Government,  or  from  any  other  State  or  Territory,  or  any  foreign 
country.  The  Constitution,  therefore,  was  based,  and  the  Union  was  founded,  on  the  principle 
of  dissimilarity  in  the  domestic  institutions  and  internal  polity  of  the  several  States.  The 
Union  was  founded  on  the  theory  that  each  State  had  peculiar  interests,  requiring  peculiar 
legislation,  and  peculiar  institutions,  different  and  distinct  from  every  other  State.  The 
Union  rests  on  the  theory  that  no  two  States  would  be  precisely  alike  in  their  domestic  policy 
and  institutions 

Hence,  I assert  that  this  doctrine  of  uniformity  in  the  domestic  institutions  of  the  different 
States  is  repugnant  to  the  Constitution,  subversive  of  the  principles  upon  which  the  Union  was 
based,  revolutionary  in  its  character,  and  leading  directly  to  despotism  if  it  is  ever  established. 
Uniformity  in  local  and  domestic  affairs  in  a country  of  great  extent  is  despotism  always. 
Show  me  centralism  prescribing  uniformity  from  the  capital  to  all  of  its  provinces  in  their 
local  and  domestic  concerns,  and  I will  show  you  a despotism  as  odious  and  as  insufferable 
as  that  of  Austria  or  of  Naples.  Dissimilarity  is  the  principle  upon  which  the  Union  rests. 
It  is  founded  upon  the  idea  that  each  State  must  necessarily  require  different  regulations  ; 
that  no  two  States  have  precisely  the  same  interests,  and  hence  do  not  need  precisely  the 
same  laws  ; and  you  cannot  account  for  this  confederation  of  States  upon  any  other  principle. 

Then,  sir,  what  becomes  of  this  doctrine  that. slavery  must  be  established  in  all  the  States 
or  prohibited  in  all  the  States?  If  we  only  conform  to  the  principles  upon  which  the  Federal 
Union  was  formed,  there  can  be  no  conflict.  It  is  only  necessary  to  recognize  the  right  of 
the  people  of  every  State  to  havo  just  such  institutions  as  they  please,  without  consulting 
your  wishes,  your  views,  or  your  prejudices,  and  there  can  be  no  conflict. 

And,  sir,  inasmuch  as  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  confers  upon  Congress  the 
power  coupled  with  the  duty  of  protecting  each  State  against  external  aggression,  and  in- 
asmuch as  that  includes  the  power  of  suppressing  and  punishing  conspiracies  in  one  State 
against  the  institutions,  property,  people,  or  government  of  every  other  State,  I desire  to 
carry  out  that  power  vigorously.  Sir,  give  us  such  a law  as  the  Constitution  contemplates 
and  authorizes,  and  I will  show  the  Senator  from  New  York  that  there  is  a constitutional 
mode  of  repressing  the  “ irrepressible  conflict.”  I will  open  the  prison  doors  to  allow  con- 
spirators against  the  peace  of  the  Republic  and  the  domestic  tranquillity  of  our  States  to 
select  their  cells  wherein  to  drag  out  a miserable  life  as  a punishment  for  their  crimes  against 
the  peace  of  society. 

Can  any  man  say  to  us  that,  although  this  outrage  has  been  perpetrated  at  Harper’s  Ferry, 
there  is  no  danger  of  its  recurrence?  Sir,  is  not  the  Republican  party  still  embodied,  organ- 
ized, confident  of  Success,  and  defiant  in  its  pretensions?  Does  it  not  now  hold  and  proclaim 
the  same  creed  that  it  did  before  this  invasion?  It  is  true  that  most  of  its  representatives  hero 
disavow  the  acts  of  John  Brown  at  Harper’s  Ferry.  I am  glad  that  they  do  so;  lam 
rejoiced  that  they  have  gone  thus  far  ; but  I must  be  permitted  to  say  to  them  that  it  is  not 
sufficient  that  they  disavow  the  act,  unless  they  also  repudiate  and  denounce  the  doctrines  and 
teachings  which  produced  tho  act.  Those  doctrines  remain  the  same  ; those  teachings  are 
being  poured  into  the  minds  of  men  throughout  the  country  by  means  of  speeches  and^pam- 
phlets  and  books,  and  through  partisan  presses.  The  causes  that  produced  the  Harper’s  Ferry 
invasion  are  now  in  active  operation.  Is  it  true  that  tire  people  of  all  the  border  States  are 
required  by  tho  Constitution  to  have  their  hands  tied,  without  the  power  of  self-defence,  and 
remain  patient  under  a threatened  invasion  in  the  day  or  in  the  night?  Can  you  expect  people 
to  be  patient,  when  they  dare  not  lie  down  to  sleep  at  night  without  first  stationing  sentinels 


11 


around  their  houses  to  see  if  a band  of  marauders  and  murderers  are  not  approaching  with 
torch  and  pistol  ? Sir,  it  requires  more  patience  than  freemen  ever  should  cultivate,  to  submit 
to  constant  annoyance,  irritation,  and  apprehension.  If  we  expect  to  preserve  this  Union, 
we  must  remedy,  within  the  Union  and  in  obedience  to  the  Constitution,  every  evil  for  which 
disunion  would  furnish  a remedy.  If  the  Federal  Government  fails  to  act,  either  from  choice 
or  from  an  apprehension  of  the  want  of  power,  it  cannot  be  expected  that  the  States  will 
be  content  to  remain  unprotected. 

Then,  sir,  I see  no  hope  of  peace,  of  fraternity,  of  good  feeling  between  the  different  por- 
tions of  the  United  States,  except  by  bringing  to  bear  the  power  of  the  Federal  Government 


to  the  extent  authorized  by  the  Constitution — to  protect  the  people  01  an  iuc  

any  external  violence  or  aggression.  I repeat,  that  if  the  theory  of  the  Constitution  shall  be 
carried  out  by  conceding  the  right  of  the  people  of  every  State  to  have  just  such  institutions 
as  they  choose,  there  cannot  be  a conflict,  much  less  an  “ irrepressible  conflict,”  between  the 
free  and  the  slaveholding  States 


Mr.  President,  the  mode  of  preserving  peace  is  plain.  This  system  of  sectional  warr 

and  all  we  ask  of  Congress  is  ‘ 


must  cease.  The  Constitution  has  given  the  power, 

i the  Federal  courts  of  our  seve- 


.are 
•.o  give 


the  means,  and  we,  by  indictments  and  convictions  in 

will  make  such  examoles  of  the  leaders  of  these  conspiracies  as  will  strike  f ral  States, 
hearts  of  the  others,  and  those  will  be  atr  end  of  this  oroide.  S.r,  you  ' *h° 

crushing  out  the  conspiracy,  the  e.nrbtnati.n, and  then  there  can  be  saw 
ere  that  spirit  of  fraternity  which  inspire  our  rov.l.tto 

-----  «»  «»«*«  °f  lh0T°h“  - U».  framed  ,h.  Const!- 

-ve  shall  be  able  to  demonstrate 


be  able  to  restore  — ■ - -r - - nary  iatners  upon  every 

battle-field  ; which  presided  over  the  deliberations  of  the  convent-  P 7 

tution  and  filled  the  hearts  of  the  people  who  ratified  it.  ^ ,/e  gnaJi  be  abJe  to  demonstrat 

to  you  that  there  is  no  evil  unredressed  m the  mon  o ^ whieli  disunion  w0Uld  furnish 
remedy.  Then,  sir,  let  us  execute  the  Constitutioi  gpijjfc  jn  ^yjjich  it  was  made.  Let 

Congress  pass  all  the  laws,  necessary  and  proper  to  give  ful]  and  complete  effect  to  every 
guaranty  cf  the  Constitution.  Let  them  authorize  the  punishment  of  conspiracies  and  com- 
binations in  any  State  or  Territory  against  the  property,  institutions,  people  or  government 
of  any  other  State  or  7“l'ritory’  and  there  wil-  be  no  excuse>  no  desire  for  disunion.  Then, 
sir,  let  us  leave  the  people  o/  Sta“  perfeCtly  free  to  form  and  ^gulate  their  domestic 

institutions  in  their  own  way  Let  e '"h  of  the“ /f  i**  . as  long  as  it  pleases,  and 

abolish  it  when  it  chooses.  Let  us  let  up,"  jf°h , o!d  ^Ider i Principle  which  teaches 
n , . , , . . P ''hbea  s- alone.  Let  this  be  done,  and  this 

all  men  to  mind  their  own  business  and  let  their  nei,  a e f a , . 

-T  . . . » & of  free  and  slave  States,  lust  as 

Union  can  endure  forever  as  our  lathers  made  it,  compos.. 

the  people  of  each  State  may  determine  for  themselves.  _ 

ihe  debate  was  continued  by  Mr.  Fessenden,  of  Maine,  to  whom-  - Maine  throua-h his 
Mr.  DOUGLAS  replied.  Mr.  President,  I shall  not  follow  the  Senator  from  '-.es  not  know 
entire  speech,  but  simply  notice  such  points  as  demand  of  me  some  reply.  He  ac.  -emust 
why  I introduced  my  resolution;  he  cannot  conceive  any  good  motive  for  it;  he  thinks  thei. 


be  some  other  motive  besides  the  one  that  has  been  avowed.  There  are  some  men,  I know, 
who  cannot  conceive  that  a man  can  be  governed  by  a patriotic  Ur  proper  motive  ; but  it  is 
got  among  that  class  of  men  that  I look  for  those  who  are  governed  by  motives  of  propriety. 
I have  no  impeachment  to  make  of  his  motives.  I brought  in  this  resolution  because  I thought 
the  time  had  arrived  when  we  should  have  a measure  of  practical  legislation.  I had  seen 
expressions  of  opinion  against  the  power  from  authorities  so  high  that  I felt  it  my  duty  to 
bring  it  to  the  attention  of  the  Senate.  I heard  that  the  Senator  from  Virginia  had  intimated 
some  doubt  on  the  question  of  power,  as  well  as  of  policy.  Other  Senators  discussed  the 
question  here  for  weeks  when  I was  confined  to  my  sick  bed.  Was  there  anything  unreasonable 
in  my  coming  before  the  Senate  at  this  time,  expressing  my  own  opinion  and  confining  myself 
to  the  practical  legislation  indicated  in  the  resolution  ? Nor,  sir,  have  I in  my  remarks  gone 
outside  of  the  legitimate  argument  pertaining  to  the  necessity  for  this  legislation.  I first 


12 


showed  that  there  had  been  a great  outrage  ; I showed  what  I believed  to  be  the  causes  that 
had  produced  the  outrage,  and  that  the  causes  which  produced  it  were  still  in  operation  ; and 
argued  that,  so  long  as  the  party  to  which  the  gentleman  belongs  remains  embodied  in  full 
force,  those  causes  will  still  threaten  the  country.  That  was  all. 

The  Senator  from  Maine  thinks  he  will  vote  for  the  bill  that  will  be  proposed  to  carry  oin 
the  objects  referred  to  in  my  resolution.  Sir,  whenever  that  Senator  and  his  associates  on  the 
other  side  of  the  Chamber  will  record  their  votes  for  a bill  of  the  character  described  in  my 
resolution  and  speech,  I shall  congratulate  the  country  upon  the  progress  they  are  making  to- 
wards sound  principles.  Whenever  he  and  his  associates  will  make  it  a felony  for  two  or 
more  men  to  conspire  to  run  off  fugitive  slaves,  and  punish  the  conspirators  by  confinement 
in  the  penitentiary,  I shall  consider  that  wonderful  changes  have  taken  place  in  this  country. 
I tell  the  Senator  that  it  is  the  general  tone  of  sentiment  in  all  those  sections  of  the  country 
where  the  Republican  party  predominate,  so  far  as  I know,  not  only  not  to  deem  it  a, crime 
to  rescue  a fugitive  slave,  but  to  raise  mobs  to  aid  in  the  rescue.  He  talks  about  slandering 
the  Republican  party  when  we  intimate  that  they  are  making  a warfare  upon  the  rights 
guarantied  by  the  Constitution.  Sir,  where,  in  the  towns  and  cities  with  Republican  majori- 
ties, can  you  execute  the  fugitive  slave  law?  Is  it  in  the  town  where  the  Senator  from  New 
York  resides?  Do  you  not  remember  the  Jerry  rescuers?  Is  it  at  Oberlin,  where  the  mob  was 
raised  that  made  the  rescue  last  year  and  produced  the  riot? 

Mr.  FESSENDEN.  I stated,  and  I believe  it  was  all  said  on  the  matter,  that  I was  dis- 
posed to  agree  with  the  Senator  in  his  views  as  to  his  question  of  power  ; and  that,  with  my 
views,  I should  go  very  far — far  enough  to  accomplish  the  purpose — to  prevent  the  forming 
of  conspiracies  in  one  State  to  attack  another.  I did  not  understand  the  Senator  to  say  any- 
thing about  conspiracies  to  run  away  with  slaves  ; nor  did  I understand  him  to  say  anything 
about  the  fugitive  slave  law.  How  I should  act  in  reference  to  that  matter  I do  not  know  ; I 
will  meet  it  when  it  comes  ; but  I ask  the  Senator  whether  that  was  a part  of  his  first  speech, 
or  whether  it  is  a part  of  his  reply? 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  The  Senator  will  find  it  several  times  repeated  in  my  first  speech  and 
the  question  asked  : "Why  not  make  it  a crime  to  form  conspiracies  and  combinations  to  run 
off  fugitive  slaves,  as  well  as  to  run  off  horses,  or  any  other  property?  I am  talking  about 
conspiracies  which  are  so  common  in  all  our  northern  States,  to  invade  and  enter,  through 
their  agents,  the  slave  States,  and  seduce  away  slaves  and  run  them  off  by  the  underground 
railroad,  in  order  to  send  them  to  Canada.  It  is  these  conspiracies  to  perpetrate  crime  with 
impunity,  that  keep  up  the  irritation.  John  Brown  eouy  boast,  in  a public  lecture  in  Cleve- 
land, that  he  and  his  band  had  been  engaged  all  the  winter  in  stealing  horses  and  running 
them'  off  from  the  slaveholders  in  Missouri,  and  that  the  livery  stables  were  then  filled  with 
stolen  horses,  and  yet  the  conspiracy  to  do  it  could  not  be  punished. 

Sir,  I desire  a law  that  will  make  it  a crime,  punishable  by  imprisonment  in  the  peniten- 
tiary, after  conviction  in  the  United  States  eourt,  to  make  a conspiracy  in  one  State,  against 
the  people,  property,  government,  or  institutions,  of  another.  Then  we  shall  get  at  the 
root  of  the  evil.  I have  no  doubt  that  gentlemen  on  the  other  side  will  vote  for  a law  which 
pretends  to  comply  with  the  guarantees  of  the  Constitution,  without  carrying  any  force  or 
efficiency  in  its  »provisions.  I have  heard  men  abuse  the  fugitive  slave  law,  and  express 
their  willingness  to  vote  for  amendments  ; but  when  you  came  to  the  amendments  which 
they  desired  to  adopt,  you  found  they  were  such  as  would  never  return  a fugitive  to  his 
master.  They  would  go  for  any  fugitive  slave  law  that  iiad  a hole  in  it  big  enough  to  let 
the  negro  drop  through  and  escape  ; but  none  that  would  comply  with  the  obligations  of  the 
Constitution.  So  we  shall  finij  that  side  of  the  Chamber  voting  for  a law  that  will,  in  terms, 
disapprove  of  unlawful  expeditions  “against  neighboring  States,  without  being  efficient  in 
affording  protection. 

Senator  says  it- is  a part  of  the  policy  of  the  northern  Democracy  to  represent  the 


13 


Republicans  as  being  hostile  to  southern  institutions.  Sir,  it  is  a part  of  the  policy  of  the 
northern  Democracy,  as  well  as  their  duty,  to  speak  the  truth  on  that  subject.  I did  not 
suppose  that  any  man  would  have  the  audacity  to  arraign  a brother  Senator  here  for  repre- 
senting the  Republican  party  as  dealing  in  denunciation  and  insult  of  the  institutions  of  the 
South.  Look  to  your  Philadelphia  platform,  where  you  asssert  the  sovereign  power  of 
Congress  over  the  Territories  for  their  government,  and  demand  that  it  shall  be  exerted 
against  those  twin  relics  of  barbarism — polygamy  and  slavery. 

Mr.  FESSENDEN.  Let  me  suggest  to  the  Senator  that  he  is  entirely  changing  the 
issue  between  him  and  me.  I did  not  desire  to  say,  and  I did  not  say,  that  the  Republicans 
of  the  North  were  not  unfriendly  to  the  institutions  of  slavery.  I admitted  myself  that  1 
was  ; I trust  they  all  are.  It  is  not  in  that  respect  that  I accuse  the  Democracy  of  the 
nf.  misrepresentin'!?  the  of  the  Ropuiiinn  party.  It  was  in  representing  that 

they  desired  to  interfere  with  the  institution  in  the  southern  States.  That  is  itnrgruund 
that  they  were  opposed  to  southern  rights.  That  they  do  not  think  well  of  slavery  as  it 
exists  in  this  country,  I do  not  undertake  to  deny.  I do  not  know  that  southern  gentlemen 
expect  us  to  be  friendly  to  it.  I apprehend  that  they  would  not  think  very  well  of  us  if  we 
pretended  to  be  friendly  to  it.  If  we  were  friendly  to  the  institution,  we  should  try  to  adopt, 
we  certainly  should  not  oppose  it  ; but  what  I charged  upon  the  northern  Democracy  was, 
that  they  misrepresented  our  position.  That  we  were  opposed  to  the  extension  of  slavery 
over  free  territory,  that  we  called  it  a relic  of  barbarism,  I admit ; but  I do  deny  that  the 
Republican  party,  or  the  Republicans  generally,  have  ever  exhibited  a desire  or  made  a 
movement  towards  interfering  with  the  right  of  southern  men,  the  States,  or  any  constitu- 
tional rights  that  they  have  anywhere.  That  is  the  charge  I made. 

Mr  DOUGLAS.  Mr.  President,  for  what  purpose  does  the  Republican  party  appeal  to 
northern  passions  and  northern  prejudices  against  southern  institutions  and  the  southern 
people,  unless  it  is  to  operate  upon  those  institutions?  They  represent  southern  institutions 
as  no  better  tnau  polygamy  ; the  slaveho  der  as  no  better  than  the  polygamist  ; and  complain 
that  we  should  intimate  that  they  did  not  like  to  associate  with  the  slaveholder  any  better 
than  with  the  polygamist,  I can  see  a monstrous  iowering  of  the  flag  in  the  Senator’s 
speech  and  explanation.  I would  respect  the  concession,  if  the  fact  was  acknowledged. 
This  thing  of  shrinking  from  positions  that  every  northern  man  knows  to  be  true,  and  ar- 
raigning dnnder  for  telling  the  truth  to  them 

Mr.  FESSENDEN.  I aw-.,  t 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  You  may  know  it  down  in  not  know  it  in  Illinois. 

I have  always  noted  that  those  men  wno  were  so  rar  off  from  .tie  =>-•  did 

not  know  anything  about  them,  are  most  anxious  fu  the  fate  of  the  poor  slave,  m , 
who  are  =o  far  off  that  they  do  not  know  what  a negro  is,  are  distressed  to  death  about  the 
condition  of  the  poor  negro.  [Laughter.]  But,  sir,  go  into  the  border  States,  where  we  asso- 
ciate across  the  line,  where  the  civilities  of  society  are  constantly  interenanged  ; where  we 

trade  with  each  other,  and  have  social  and  commercial  intercourse  and  there  you  wil  n 

them  standing  by  each  other  like  a band  of  brothers.  Take  soutaern  II hnois  soutnern  Ind  ana 
■southern  Ohio,  and  that  part  of  Pennsylvania  bordering  on  Maryland,  and  there  you  will 
social  intercourse,  commercial  intercourse,  good  feeling  ; because  those  people  know  the  con- 
dition of  the  slave  on  the  opposite  side  cf  the  line  ; but  just  in  proportion  as  you  ^de  from 
the  slave  States,  just  in  proportion  as  the  people  are  ignoran  o ne  > J 
nortion  party  leaders  can  impose  on  their  sympathies  and  honest  prejudices 
P Sir  I know  it  is  the  habit  of  the  Republican  party,  as  a party,  wherever  I have  met  them, 
to  make  the  warfare  in  such  a way  as  to  try  to  rally  the  whole  North  on  sectiona  groun 
against  the  South.  I know  that  is  to  be  the  issue,  and  it  is  proven  by  the  speech  of  tne  Senator 
• ffom  Net  yI,  which  I quoted  before,  and  that  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  so  far  as  they  are  authority 
I happen  to  have  those  speeches  before  me.  The  Senator  from  Maine  has  said  |at  neithe 


14 


’ of  these  speeches  justified  the  conclusion  that  they  asserted  that  the  free  States  and  the 
slave  States  cannot  coexist  permanently  in  the  same  Republic.  Let  us  see  whether  they  do 
or  not.  Mr.  Lincoln  says  : 


‘ 1 A house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand.  I believe  this  Government  cannot  endure  permanently,  half 
slave  and  half  free. 


Then  he  goes  on  to  say  they  must  all  be  one  thing  or  all  the  other,  or  else  the  Union  can- 
not endure.  What  is  the  meaning  of  that  language,  unless  it  is  that  the  Union  cannot  per- 
manently exist,  half  slave  and  half  free — that  it  must  all  become  one  thing  or  all  become  the* 
other?  That  is  the  declaration.  The  declaration  is  that  the  North  must  combine  as  a sec- 
tional party,  and  carry  on  the  agitation  so  fiercely,  up  to  the  very  borders  of  the  slaveholding 
States,  that  the  master  dare  not  sleep  at  nfirlit  for  fear  that  the  robbers,  the  John  Browns, 
will  come  and  oot  hi=>  lrouse  on  nre,  and  murder  the  women  and  children  before  morning.  It 
is  to  surround  the  slaveholding  States  by  a cordon  of  free  States — to  use  the  language  ot  the 
Senator  ; to  hem  them  in,  in  order  that  you  may  smother  them  out.  The  Senator  avowed, 
in  his  speech  to-day,  their  object  to  be  to  hem  in  the  slave  States,  in  order  that  slavery  may 
die  out.  How  die  out?  Confine  it  to  its  present  limits  ; let  the  ratio  of  increase  go  on  by  the 
laws  of  nature  ; and  just  in  proportion  as  the  lands  in  the  slaveholding  States  wear  out,  the 
negroes  increase,  and  you  will  soon  reach  that  point  where  the  soil  will  not  produce  enough 
to  feed  the  slaves  ; then  hem  them  in  and  let  them  starve  out — let  them  die  out  by  starva- 
tion. That  is  the  policy — hem  them  in,  and  starve  them  out.  Do  as  the  French  did  in 
Algeria,  when  the  Arabs  took  to  the  caverns — smoke  them  out,  by  making  fires  at  the 
mouths  of  the  caverns,  and  keep  them  burning  until  they  die.  The  policy  is  to  keep  up  this 
agitation  along  the  line  ; make  slave  property  insecure  in  the  border  States  ; keep  the  master 
constantly  in  apprehension  of  assault,  till  he  will  consent  to  abandon  bis  native  country, 
leaving  his  slaves  behind  him,  or  to  remove  them  further  South.  If  you  can  force  Kentucky 
thus  to  abolish  slavery,  you  make  Tennessee  the  border  State,  and  begin  the  same  operation 
upon  her. 

But,  sir,  let  us  see  whether  the  Senator  from  New  York  did  not  proclaim  the  doctrine  that 
free  States  and  slave  States  cannot  permanently  exist  in  the  same  Republic.  He  said  : 


“ It  is  an  irrepressible  conflict  between  opposing  and  enduring  forces  ; and  it  means  that  the  umica  ; 
must  and  will,  soouer  or  later,  become  either  a slaveholding  nation  or  entirely  a free-labor  nation.” 

The  opposing  conflict  is  between  the  States:  th°  TT-'  rema'n  as  now  Part 

free  and  part  slave.  The  confi^y  *“tes  and  slave  States  must  go  on  until  there 

o1o.._  - ~‘v’  untl1  1 ley  are  a11  s!ave  States.  That  is  the  declaration  of  the 

1S  -°-Vom  New  York.  The  Senator  from  Maine  tried  to  make  the  Senate  believe  that  I 
had  misrepresented  the  Senator  from  New  York  and  Mr.  Lincoln,  of  Illinois,  in  stating  that 
they  referred  to  a conflict  between  States.  He  said  that  all  they  meant  was  that  it  was  a 
conflict  between  free  labor  and  slave  labor  in  the  same  Slate.  Now,  sir,  let  me  submit  to 
that  man’s  candor  whether  he  will  insist  on  that  position.  They  both  say  the  contest  will 
go  on  until  the  States  become  all  free  or  all  slave.  Then,  when  is  the  contest  goino-  to  end  > 
When  they  become  all  slave?  Will  there  not  be  the  same  conflict  between  free  Tabor  and 
slave  labor,  after  every  State  has  become  a slave  State,  that  there  is  now  ? If  that  was  the 
meaning,  would  the  conflict  betw.een  slave  labor  and  free  labor  cease  even  when  every  State 
had  become  slaveholding?  Have  not  all  the  slaveholding  States  a large  number  of  free 
laborers  within  their  limits  ; and  if  there  is  an  irrepressible  conflict  between  free  labor  and 
slave  labor,  will  you  remove  that  conflict  by  making  .he  States  all  slave?  Yet,  the  Senator 
rom  New  York  says  that  they  must  become  all  slave  or  ail  free  before  the  conflict  ceases. 
Sir,  that  shows  that  the  Senator  from  New  York  meant  what  I represented  him  as  meaning, 
t slows  that  a man  who  knows  the  meaning  of  words,  and  has  the  heart  to  express  them  as 
ey  read,  cannot  fail  to  know  that  that  was  the  meaning  of  those  Senators.  The  boldness 


15 


-with  which  a charge  of  misrepresentation  may  be  made  in  this  body  will  not  give  character 
to  R when  it  is  contradicted  by  the  facts.  I dislike  to  have  to  repel  these  charges  of  unfairness 
and  misrepresentation  ; yet  the  Senator  began  with  a series  of  innuendoes,  with  a series  ef 
complaints  of  misrepresentation,  showing  that  he  was  afraid  to  meet  the  real  issues  of  his 
party,  and  would  make  up  for  that  by  personal  assaults  and  innuendoes  against  the  opposite 
party. 

He  goes  back  to  a speech  of  mine  in  opposition  to  the  Leeompton  constitution  in  whicli  I 
said  that  if  you  would  send  that  constitution  back  and  let  the  people  of  Kansas  vote  for  or 
against  it,  if  they  voted  for  a free  State  or  a slave  State  I would  go  for  it  without  caring 
whether  they  voted  slavery  up  or  down.  He  thinks  it  is  a great  charge  against  me  that  I 
do  not  care  whether  the  people  vote  it  up  or  vote  it  down. 

Mr.  FESSEN  DEN.  The  Senator  is  mistaken  as  to  the  speech  to  which  I referred.  It 
was  one  of  his  speeches  made  on  his  southern  tour  that  I referred  to. 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  The  idea  is  taken  from  a speech  in  the  Senate — the  first  speech  I made 
against  the  Leeompton  constitution.  It  was  quoted  all  over  Illinois  by  Mr.  Lincoln  in  the 
canvass,  and  I repeated  the  sentiment  each  time  it  was  quoted  against  me,  and  repeated  it 
in  the  South  as  well  as  the  North.  I say  this  : if  the  people  of  Kansas  want  a slave  State, 
it  is  their  business  and  not  mine  : if  they  want  a free  State,  they  have  a right  to  have  it ; 
and  hence,  I do  not  care,  so  far  as  regards  my  action,  whether  they  make  it  free  State  or 
not ; it  is  none  of  my  business.  But  the  Senator  says  he  does  care,  he  has  a preference 
between  freedom  and  slavery.  How  long  would  this  preference  last  if  he  was  a sugar  plan- 
ter in  Louisiana  residing  on  his  estate^instead  of  living  in  Maine  ? Sir,  I hold  the  doctrine 
that  a wise  statesman  will  adapt  his  laws  to  the  wants,  conditions,  and  interests  of  the  people 
to  be  governed  by  them.  Slavery  may  be  very  essential  in  one  climate  and  totally  useless  in 
another.  If  I were  a citizen  of  Louisiana  I would  vote  for  retaining  and  maintaining  slaver}', 
because  I believe  the  good  of  that  people  would  require  it.  As  a ciiizen  of  Illinois  I am 
utterly  opposed  to  it,  because  our  interests  would  not  be  promoted  by  it.  I should  like  to 
see  the  Abolitionist  who  would  go  and  live  in  a southern  country  that  would  not  get  over  his 
scruples  very  soon  and  have  a plantation  as  quickly  as  he  could  get  the  money  to  buy  it. 

I have  said  and  repeat  that  this  question  of  slavery  is  one  of  climate,  of  political  economy, 
of  self-interest,  not  a question  of  legislation.  Wherever  the  climate,  the  soil,  the  health 
of  the  country  aro  such  that  it  cannot  be  cultivated  by  white  labor,  you  will  have  African 
labor,  and  compulsory  labor  at  that.  Whereve*  white  labor  can  be  employed  cheapest  and 
most  profitably,  there  African  labor  will  retire  and  white  labor  will  take  its  place. 

You  cannot  force  slavery  by  all  the  acts  of  Congress  you  may  make  on  one  inch  of  terri- 
tory against  the  will  of  the  people,  and  you  cannot  by  any  law  you  can  make  keep  it  out 
from  one  inch  of  American  territory  where  the  people  want  it.  You  tried  it  in  Illinois.  By 
the  ordinance  of  17S7,  slavery  was  prohibited,  and  yet  our  people,  believing  that  slavery 
would  be  profitable  to  them,  established  hereditary  servitude  in  the  Territory  by  territorial 
legislation,  in  defiance  of  your  Federal  ordinance.  We  maintained  slavery  there  just  so  long 
as  Congress  said  we  should  not  have  it,  and  we  abolished  it  at  just  the  moment  you  recognized 
us  as  a State,  with  the  right  to  do  as  we  pleased.  When  we  established  it,  it  was  on  the 
supposition  that  it  was  for  our  interest  to  do  so.  When  we  abolished  it,  we  did  so  because 
experience  proved  that  it  was  not  our  interest  to  have  it.  I hold  that  slavery  is  a question  of 
political  economy,  to  be  determined  by  climate,  by  soil,  by  production,  by  self-interest,  and 
hence  the  people  to  be  affected  by  it  are  the  most  impartial  jury  to  try  the  fact  whether  their 
interest  requires  them  to  have  it  or  not. 

But  the  Senator  thinks  it  is  a great  crime  for  me  to  say  that  I do  not  care  whether  they 
have  it  or  not.  I care  just  this  far  : I want  every  people  to  have  that  kind  of  government, 
that  system  of  laws,  that  class  of  institutions,  which  will  best  promote  their  welfare,  and  I 
want  them  to  decide  for  themselves  ; and  so  that  they  decide  it  to  suit  themselves,  I am 


16 


satisfied,  without  stopping  to  inquire  or  caring  which  way  they  decide  it.  That  is  what  I 
mean  by  that  declaration , and  I am  ready  to  stand  by  it. 

The  Senator  has  made  the  discovery — I suppose  it  is  very.new,  for  he  would  not  repeat 
anything  that  was  old,  after  calling  me  to  account  for  expressing  an  idea  that  had  been  heard 
.of  before — that  I reopened  the  agitation  by  bringing  in  the  Nebraska  bill  in  1854;  and  he  tries 
to  put  the  responsibility  of  the  crimes  perpetrated  by  his  political  friends,  and  in  violation  of 
the  law,  upon  the  provisions  of  the  law  itself  We  passed  a bill  to  allow  the  people  of  Kan- 
sas to  form  and  regulate  their  own  institutions  to  suit  themselves.  No  sooner  had  we  placed 
that  law  on  the  statute-book  than  his  political  friends  formed  conspiraeies'and  combinations 
in  the  different  New  England  States  to  import  a set  of  desperadoes  into  Kansas  to  control  the  ■ 
elections  and  the  institutions  of  that  country  in  fraud  of  the  law  of  Congress. 

Sir,  I desire  to  make  the  legislation  broad  enough  to  reach  conspiracies  and  combinations 
of  that  kind  ; and  I would  also  include  combinations  and  conspiracies  on  the  other  side.-  My 
object  is  to  establish  firmly  the  doctrine  that  each  State  is  to  do  its  own  voting,  establish  its 
own  institutions,  make  its  own  laws  without  interference,  directly  or  indirectly,  from  any 
outside  power.  The  gentleman  says  that  is  squatter  sovereignty.  Call  it  squatter  sov- 
ereignty, call  it  popular  sovereignty,  call  it  what  you  please  ; it  is  the  great  principle  of  self- 
government  on  which  this  Union  was  formed,  and  by  the  preservation  of  which  alone  can  it 
be  maintained.  It  is  the  right  of  the  people  of  every  State  to  govern  themselves  and  make 
their  own  laws,  and  be  protected  from  outside  violence  or  interference,  directly  or  indirectly. 
Sir,  I confess  the  object  of  the  legislation  I contemplate  is  to  put  down  this  outside  interference; 
it  is  to  repress  this  *•  irrepressible  "ClifliCt ; ” it  IS  to  bring  too  Government  back  to  the  truer 
principles  of  the  Constitution,  and  let  each  people  in  this  Union  rest  secure  in  the  enjoyment 
of  domestic  tranquillity  without  apprehension  from  neighboring  States.  I will  not  occupy 
further  time. 


ADMISSION  OF  KANSAS  UNDER  THE  WYANBOXX  CONSTITUTION 


SPEECH 

OF 

HON.  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS, 

IN  REPLY  TO 

MR.  SEWARD  AND  MR.  TRUMBULL. 


DELIVERED  IX  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  FEBRUARY  29,  1860. 


Mr.  President  : I trust  I shall  be  pardoned  for  a few  remarks  upon  so  much  of  the  Sen- 
ator’s speeeli  as  consists  in  an  assault  on  the  Democratic  party,  and  especially  with  re- 
gard to  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  of  which  I was  the  responsible  author.  It  has  become 
fashionable  now-a-days  for  each  gentleman  making  a speech  against  the  Democratic  party 
to  refer  to  the  Kansas-Nebraska  act  as  the  cause  of  all  the  disturbances  that  have  since 
ensued.  They  talk  about  the  repeal  of  a sacred  compact  that  bad  been  undisturbed 
for  more  than  a quarter  of  a century,  as  if  those  who  complained  of  violated  faith 
had  been  faithful  to  the  provisions  of  the  Missouri  compromise.  Sir,  wherein  consisted 
the  necessity  for  the  repeal  or  abrogation  of  that  act,  except  it  was  that  the  majority  in 
the  northern  States  refused  to  carry  out  the  Missouri  compromise  in  good  faith  ? I stood 
willing  to  extend  it  to  the  Pacific  ocean,  and  abide  by  it  forever,  and  the  entire  Sontb, 
without  one  exception  in  this  body,  was  willing  thus  to  abide  by  it;  but  the  free-soil 
element  of  the  northern  States  was  so  strong  as  to  defeat  that  measure  arid  thus  open  the 
slavery  question  anew.  The  men  who  now  complain  of  the  abrogation  of  that  aet  were 
the  very  men  who  denounced  it,  and  denounced  all  of  us  who  were  willing  to  abide  by 
it  so  long  as  it  stood  upon  the  statute  book.  Sir,  it  was  the  defeat  in  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives of  the  enactment  of  the  bill  to  extend  the  Missouri  compromise  !o  the  Pacific 
ocean,  after  it  bad  passed  the  Senate  on  my  own  motion,  that  opened  the  controversy  of 
1850,  which  was  terminated  by  the  adoption  of  the  measures  of  that  year. 

We  carried  those  compromise  measures  over  the  head  of  the  Senator  from  New  York 
and  his  present  associates.  We,  in  those  measures,  established  a great  principle,  rebuking 
bis  doctrine  of  intervention  by  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  to  prohibit  slavery  in 
the  Territories.  Both  parties,  in  1852,  pledged  themselves  to  abide  by  that  principle, 
and  thus  stood  pledged  not  to  prohibit  slavery  in  the  Territories  by  act  of  Congress.  The 
Whig  party  affirmed  that  pledge,  arid  so  did  the  Democracy.  In  1854  we  only  carried 
out,  in  the  Kansas-Nebraska  act,  the  same  principle  that  had  been  affirmed  in  the  com- 
promise measures  of  1850.  I repeat  that  their  resistance  to  carrying  out  in  good  faith 
the  settlement  of  1820,  their  defeat  of  the  bill  for  extending  it  to  the  Pacific  ocean,  was 
the  sole  cause  of  the  agitation  of  1850,  and  gave  rise  to  the  necessity  of  establishing  the 
principle  of  non-intervention  by  Congress  with  slavery  in  the  Territories. 

Hence  I am  not  willing  to  sit  here  and  allow  the  Senator  from  New  York,  with  all  the 
weight  of  authority  he  has  with  the  powerful  party  of  which  he  is  the  head,  to  arraign 
me  and  the  party  to  which  I belong  with  the  responsibility  forthat  agitation  which  rests 
solely  upon  him  and  his  associates.  Sir,  the  Democratic  party  was  willing  to  carry  out 
the  compromise  in  ffood  faith.  Having  been  defeated  in  that  for  the  want  of  numbers, 
and  having  established  the  principle  of  non-intervention  in  the  compromise  measures  a 
1850,  in  lieu  of  it,  the  Democratic  party  from  that  day  to  this  has  been  faithful  to  tb\ 
new  principle  of  adjustment.  Whatever  agitation  has  grown  out  of  the  questior  sine., 
has  been  occasioned  by  the  resistance  of  the  party  of  which  that  Senator  is  the  head,  to 
this  great  principle  which  has  been  ratified  by  the  American  people  at  two  presidential 
elections.  If  he  was  willing  to  acquiesce  in  the  solemn  and  repeated  judgment  of  that 
American  people  to  which  lie  appeals,  there  wouid  he  no  agitation  in  this  country  now 

But,  sir,  the  whole  argument  of  that  Senator  goes  far  beyond  the  question  of  slavery, 
even  in  the  Territories.  His  entire  argument  rests  on  the  assumption  that  the  negro  an<I 
the  white  man  were  equal  by  Divine  law,  and  hence  that  all  laws  and  constitutions  one 
governments  in  violation  of  the  principle  of  negro  equality  are  in  violation  of  the  law  of 
God.  That  is  the  basis  upon  which  his  speech  rests.  He  quotes  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence to  show  that  the  fathers  of  the  Revolution  understood  that  the  negro  was  p’aeao 
on  an  equality  with  the  white  man,  by  quoting  the  clause,  “we  hold  these  truths  to  1>« 
self-evident,  that  all  men  are  created  equal,  and  are  endowed  by  their  Creator  with  cer- 
tain inalienable  rights,  among  which  are  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness.”  Sir, 
the  doctrine  of  that  Senator  and  of  his  party  is — and  1 have  had  to  meet  it  for  eight  years — 
that  the  Declaration  of  Independence  intended  to  recognize  the  negro  and  the  white  mao 
as  equal  under  the  Divine  law,  and  hence  that  all  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States  which  recognize  slavery  are  in  violation  of  the  Divine  law.  In  other 
words,  it  is  an  argument  against  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  upon  the  ground 

Printed  by  Lemuel  Towers,  at  fifty  cents  per  hundred  copies. 


that  it  is  contrary  to  the  law  of  God.  The  Senator  from  New  Tort  has  long  held  that 
doctrine.  The  Senator  from  New  York  has  often  proclaimed  to  the  world,  that  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States  was  in  violation  of  the  Divine  law,  and  that  Senator  will 
not  contradict  the  statement.  I have  an  extract  from  one  of  his  speeches  now  before  hie, 
in  which  that  proposition  is  distinctly  put  forth.  In  a speech  made  in  the  State  of  Ohio, 
in  1818,  he  said: 

“ Slavery  is  the  sin  of  not  some  of  the  States  only,  but  of  them  all ; of  not  one  nationality,  but  of  all 
nations.  It  perverted  and  corrupted  the  moral  sense  of  mankiud  deeply  and  universally,  amf  this  perver- 
sion became  a universal  habit,  tidbits  of  thought  become  fixed  principles.  No  American  Stale  has  yet 
delivered  itself  entirely  from  thcs%  habits.  We,  in  New  York,  are  guilty  of  slavery  still  by  withholding 
the  right  of  suffrage  from  the  race  we  have  emancipated.  You,  in  Ohio,  are  guilty  in  the  same  way  by  a 
system  of  black  laws  still  more  aristocratic  and  odious.  It  is  written  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  that  five  slaves  shall  count  equal  to  three  freemen  as  a basis  of  representation  ; and  it  is  written, 
also,  IN  VIOLATION  OF  DIVINE  LAW,  that  we  shall  surrender  the  fugitive  slave  who  takes  refuge 
at  our  fireside  from  his  relentless  pursuer.” 

There  yon  find  his  doctrine  clearly  laid  down,  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  is  “in  violation  of  the  Divine  law,"  and  therefore,  is  not  to  be  obeyed.  You 
are  told  that  the  clause  relating  to  fugitive  slaves,  being  in  violation  of  the  Divine 
law,  is  not  binding  on  mankind.  This  has  been  the  doctrine  of  the  Senator  from  New 
York  for  years.  I have  not  heard  it  in  the  Senate  to-day  for  the  first  time.  I have  met 
in  my  own  State,  for  the  last  ten  years,  this  same  doctrine,  that  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence recognized  the  negro  and  the  white  man  as  equal  ; that  the  negro  and  white 
man  are  equals  by  Divine  law,  and  that  eveiy  provision  of  our  Constitution  and  laws 
which  establishes  inequality  between  the  negro  and  the  white  man,  is  void,  because  con- 
trary to  the  law  of  God. 

The  Senator  from  New  York  says,  in  (he  very  speech  from  which  I have  quoted,  that 
New- York  is  yet  a slave  State.  Wliv?  Not  that  she  has  a slave  within  her  limits,  but 
because  the  constitution  of  New  York  does  not  allow  a negro  to  vote*on  an  equality  with 
a white  man.  For  that  reason  he  says  New  York  is  still  a slave  State;  for  that  reason 
every  other  State  that  discriminates  between  the  negro  and  the  white  man  is  a slave 
State,  leaving  but  a very  few  States  in  the  Union  that  are  free  from  his  objection.  Yet, 
notwithstanding  the  Senator  is  committed  to  these  doctrines,  notwithstanding  the  leading 
men  of  his  party  are  committed  to  them,  he  argues  that  they  have  been  accused  of  being 
in  favor  of  negro  equality,  and  says  the  tendency  of  their  doctrine  is  the  equality  of  the 
white  man.  He  introduces  the  objection,  and  fails  to  answer  it.  He  states  the  proposi- 
tion and  dodges  it,  to  leave  the  inference  that  he  does  not  indorse  it.  Sir,  I desire  to  see 
these  gentlemen  carry  out  their  principles  to  their  logical  conclusion.  If  they  will  per- 
sist in  the  declaration  that  the  negro  is  made  the  equal  of  the  white  man,  and  tliat  any 
inequality  is  in  violation  of  the  Divine  law,  then  let  them  carry  it  out  in  their  legislation 
by  conferring  on  the  negroes  all  the  rights  of  citizenship  the  same  as  on  while  men.  For 
one,  I never  held  to  any  snch  doctrine.  I hold  that  the  Declaration  of  Independence 
was  only  referring  to  the  white  man — to  the  governing  race  of  this  country,  who  were 
in  conflict  with  Great  Britain,  and  had  no  reference  to  the  negro  race  at  all,  when  it  de- 
clared that  all  men  were  created  equal. 

Sir,  if  the  signers  of  that  declaration  had  understood  the  instrument  then  as  the  Sena- 
tor from  New  York  now  construes  it,  were  they  not  bound  on  that  day,  at  that  very 
hour,  to  emancipate  all  their  slaves?  If  Mr.  Jefferson  had  meant  that  bis  negro  slaves 
were  created  by  the  Almighty  his  equals,  was  lie  not  bound  to  emancipate  the  slaves  on 
the  very  day  that  he  signed  his  name  to  the  Declaration  of  Independence?  Yet  no  one 
of  the  signers  of  that  declaration  emancipated  his  slaves.  No  one  of  the  States  on  whose 
behalf  the  declaration  was  signed,  emancipated  its  slaves  until  after  the  Revolution  was 
over.  Every  one  of  the  original  colonies,  every  one  of  the  thirteen  original  States,  sanc- 
tioned and  legalized  slavery  until  after  the  Revolution  was  closed.  These  facts  show 
conclusively  that  the  Declaration  of  Independence  was  never  intended  to  bear  the  con- 
struction placed  upon  it  by  the  Senator  from  New  York,  and  by  that  enormous  tribe  of 
lecturers  that  go  through  the  country  delivering  lectures  in  country  school-houses  and 
basements  of  churches  to  Abolitionists,  in  order  to  teach  the  children  that  the  Almighty  had 
put.  his  seal  of  condemnation  upon  any  inequality  between  the  white  man  and  the  negro. 

Mr.  President,  I am  free  to  say  here — what  I have  said  over  and  over  again  at  home — 
that,  in  my  opinion,  this  Government  was  made  by  white  men  for  the  benefit  of  white 
men  and  their  posterity  forever,  and  should  be  administered  by  white  men.  and  by  none 
other  whatsoever. 

Mr.  DOOLITTLE.  I will  ask  the  honorable  Senator,  then,  why  not  give  the  Territo- 
ries to  white  men  ? 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  Mr.  President,  I am  iu  favor  of  throwing  the  Territories  open  to  all 
the  white  men,  and  all  the  negroes,  too,  that  choose  to  go,  and  then  allow  the  white  men 
to  ijovern  the  Territory.  I would  not  let  one  of  the  negroes,  free  or  slave,  either  vote  or 
fold  office  anywhere,  where  I had  the  right,  under  the  Constitution,  to  prevent  it.  I am 
in  favor  of  each  State  and  each  Territory  of  this  Union  taking  care  of  its  own  negroes, 
free  or  slave.  If  they  want  slavery,  let  them  have  it;  if  they  desire  to  prohibit  slavery, 
let  them  do  it:  it  is  their  business,  not  mine.  We  in  Illinois  tried  slavery  while  we  were 
a Territorv,  and  found  it  was  not  profitable;  and  hence  we  turned  philanthropists  and 
abolished  it,  just  as  our  British  friends  across  the  ocean  did.  They  established  slavery 


3 


in  all  their  colonies,  and  -when  they  found  they  could  not  make  any  more  money  out  of 
it,  abolished  it.  I hold  that  the  question  of  slavery  is  one  of  political  economy,  governed 
by  the  laws  of  climate,  soil,  productions,  and  self-interest,  and  not  by  mere  statutory  pro- 
vision. I repudiate  the  doctrine,  that  because  free  institutions  may  be  best,  in  one  climate, 
they  are,  necessarily,  the  best  everywhere  ; or  that  because  slavery  may  be  indispensable 
in  one  locality,  therefore  it  is  desirable  everywhere.  I hold  that  a wise  statesman  will 
always  adapt  his  legislation  to  the  wants,  interests,  condition,  and  necessities  of  the  people 
to  be  governed  by  it.  One  people  will  bear  different  institutions  from  another.  One  cli- 
mate demands  different  institutions  from  another.  I repeat,  then,  what  I have  often  had 
occasion  to  sa}-,  that  I do  not  think  uniformity  is  either  possible  or  desirable.  I wish  to 
see  no  two  States  precisely  alike  in  their  domestic  institutions  in  this  Union.  Our  sys- 
tems rests  on  the  supposition  that  each  State  has  something  in  her  condition  or  climate,  or 
her  circumstances,  requiring  laws  and  institutions  different  from  every  other  State  of 
the  Union.  Hence  I answer  the  question  of  the  Senator  from  Wisconsin,  that  I am  will- 
ing that  a Territory  settled  by  white  men  shall  have  negroes,  free  or  slave,  just  as  the 
while  men  shall  determine,  but  not  as  the  negroes  shall  prescribe. 

The  Senator  from  New  York  has  coined  a new  definition  of  the  States  of  the  Union — 
Labor  States  and  Capital  States.  The  capital  States,  I believe,  are  the  slaveholding  States ; 
the  labor  States  are  the  non-slaveholding  States.  It  has  taken  that  Senator  a good  many 
years  to  coin  that  phrase  and  briug  it  into  use.  I have  heal'd  him  discuss  these  favorite 
theories  of  his  for  the  last,  ten  years,  I think,  and  I never  heard  of  capital  States  and 
labor  States  before.  It  strikes  me  that  something  has  recently  occurred  up  in  New  Eng- 
land that  makes  it  politic  to  get  up  a question  between  capital  and  labor,  and  take  the 
side  of  the  numbers  against  the  few.  We  have  seen  some  accounts  in  the  newspapers  of 
combinations  and  strikes  among  the  journeymen  shoemakers  iD  the  towns  there — labor 
against  capital.  The  Senator  has  a new  word  ready  coined  to  suit  their  ease,  and  make 
the  laborers  believe  that  he  is  on  tire  side  of  the  most  numerous  class  of  voters. 

What  produced  that  strike  amoDg  the  journeymen  shoemakers?  Why  are  the  me- 
chanics of  New  England,  the  laborers  and  employees,  now  reduced  to  the  starvation 
point?  Simply  because,  by  your  treason,  by  your  sectional  agitation,  you  have  created 
a strife  between  the  North  and  the  South,  have  driven  away  your  southern  customers, 
and  thus  deprive  the  laborers  of  the  means  of  support.  This  is  the  fruit,  of  your  Republican 
dogmas.  It  is  another  step,  following  John  Brown,  of  the  “irrepressible  conflict.”  There- 
fore, we  now  get  this  new  coinage  of  “ labor  States” — he  is  on  the  side  of  the  shoemakers, 
(’laughter,)  and  “capital  States” — he  is  against  those  that  furnish  the  hides.  (Laughter.) 

I think  those  shoemakers  will  understand  this  business.  They  know  why  it  is  that  they 
do  not  get  so  many  orders  as  they  did  a few  months  ago.  It  is  not  confined  to  the  shoe- 
makers; it  reaches  every  mechanic’s  shop  and  every  factory.  All  the  large  laboring  es- 
tablishments of  the  North  feel  the  pressure  produced  by  the  doctrine  of  the  “irrepressible 
conflict.”  This  new  coinage  of  words  will  not  save  them  from  the  just  responsibility  that 
follows  the  doctrines  they  have  been  inculcating.  If  they  bad  abandoned  the  doctrine 
of  the  “irrepressible  conflict,”  and  proclaimed  the  true  doctrine  of  the  Constitution,  that 
each  State  is  entirely  free  to  do  just  as  it  pleases,  have  slavery  as  long  as  it  chooses,  and 
abolish  it  when  it  wishes,  there  would  be  no  conflict;  the  northern  and  southern  States 
would  be  brethren  ; there  would  be  fraternity  between  us,  aud  your  shoemakers  would  not 
strike  for  higher  prices. 

Mr.  CLARK.  Will  the  Senator  pardon  me  for  interrupting  him  a moment? 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  I will  not  give  way  for  a speech;  I will  for  a suggestion. 

Mr.  CLARK.  I desire  simply  to  make  one  single  suggestion  in  regard  to  what  the 
Senator  from  Illinois  said  in  reference  to  the  condition  of  the  laboring  classes  in  the  fac- 
tories. I come  from  a city  where  there  are  three  thousand  operatives,  and  there  never 
was  a time  when  they  were  more  contented  and  better  paid  in  the  factories  than  now, 
and  when  their  business  was  better  than  at  this  present  time. 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  I was  speaking  of  the  scarcity  of  labor  growing  up  in  our  northern 
manufacturing  towns,  as  a legitimate  and  natural  consequence  of  the  diminution  of  the  de- 
mand for  the  manufactured  article;  and  then  the  question  is,  what  cause  has  reduced  this 
demand,  except  the  “irrepressible  conflict”  that  has  turned  the  southern  trade  away  from 
northern  cities  into  southern  towns  and  southern  cities?  Sir,  the  feeling  among  the 
masses  of  the  South  we  fiud  typified  in  the  dress  of  the  Senator  from  Virginia,  (Mr.  Mason  ;) 
they  are  determined  to  wear  the  homespun  of  their  own  productions  rather  than  trade 
with  the  North.  That  is  the  feeling  which  has  produced  this  state  of  distress  in  our  man- 
ufacturing towns. 

The  Senator  from  New  York  has  also  referred  to  the  recent  action  of  the  people 
of  New  Mexico,  in  establishing  a code  for  the  protection  of  property  in  slaves,  and 
he  congratulates  the  country  upon  the  final  success  of  the  advocates  of  free  institutions 
in  Kansas.  He  could  not  fail,  however,  to  say,  in  order  to  preserve  what  he  thought  was 
a striking  antithesis,  that  popular  sovereignty  in  Kansas  meant  State  sovereignty  in  Mis- 
souri. No,  sir  ; popular  sovereignty  in  Kansas  was  stricken  down  by  unholy  combination 
in  New  England  to  ship  men  to  Kansas — rowdies  and  vagabonds — with  the  Bible  in  one 
hand  and  Sharpe’s  rifle  in  the  other,  to  shoot  down  the  friends  of  self-government. 
Popular  sovereignty  in  Kansas  was  stricken  down  by  the  combinations  in  the  northern 
States  to  carry  elections  under  pretence  of  emigrant  aid  societies.  In  retaliation,  Mis- 


4 


souri  formed  aid  societies  too;  and  she,  following  your  example,  sent  men  into  Kansas, 
and  then  occurred  the  conflict.  Now,  you  throw  the  blame  upon  Missouri  merely  be- 
cause she  followed  your  example,  and  attempted  to  resist  its  consequences.  I condemn 
both;  but  I condemn  a thousand-fold  more  those  that  set  the  example  and  struck  the 
tii'st  blow,  than  those  who  thought  they  would  act  upon  the  principle  of  fighting  the  devil 
with  his  own  weapons,  and  resorted  to  the  same  means  that  you  had  employed. 

But,  6ir,  notwithstanding  the  efforts  of  emigrant  aid  societies,  the  people  of  Kansas 
have  had  their  own  way,  and  the  people  of  New  Mexico  have  had  their  own  way.  Kan- 
sas has  adopted  a free  State;  New  Mexico  has  established  a slave  Territory.  I am  con- 
tent with  both.  If  the  people  of  New  Mexico  want  slavery,  let  them  have  it,  and  [ never 
will  vote  to  repeal  their  slave  code.  If  Kansas  does  not  want  slavery,  I will  not  help 
anybody  to  force  it  on  her.  Let  each  do  as  it  pleases.  When  Kansas  comes  to  the  con- 
clusion that  slavery  will  suit  her,  aud  promote  her  interest  better  than  the  prohibition, 
let  her  pass  her  own  slave  code  ; I will  not  pass  it  for  her.  Whenever  New  Mexico  gets 
tired  of  her  code,  she  must  repeal  it  for  herself;  1 will  not  repeal  it  for  her.  Non  inter- 
vention by  Congress  with  slavery  in  the  Territories  is  the  platform  on  which  I stand. 

But  I want  to  know  why  will  not  the  Senator  from  New  York  carry  out  his  principles 
to  their  logical  conclusions  ? Why  is  there  not  a man  in  that  whole  party,  in  this  body  or 
the  House  of  Representatives,  bold  enough  to  redeem  the  pledges  which  that  party  has 
made  to  the  country?  I believe  you  said,  in  your  Philadelphia  platform,  that  Congress 
had  sovereign  power  over  the  Territories  for  their  government,  and  that  it  was  the  duty 
of  Congress  to  prohibit,  in  all  the  Territories,  those  twin  relics  of  barbarism,  slavery  and 
polygamy.  Why  do  you  not  carry  out  your  pledges?  Why  do  you  not  introduce  your 
bill?  The  Senator  from  New  York  says  they  have  no  new  measures  to  originate;  no  new 
movement  to  make;  no  new  bill  to  bring  forward.  Then  what  confidence  shall  the 
American  people  repose  in  your  faith  and  sincerity,  when,  having  the  power  in  one 
House,  you  do  not  bring  forward  a bill  to  carry  out  your  principles?  The  fact  is,  these 
principles  are  avowed  to  get  votes  in  the  North,  hut  not  to  be  carried  into  effect  by  acts 
of  Congress.  You  are  afraid  of  hurting  your  party  if  you  bring  in  your  bill  to  repeal 
the  slave  code  of  New  Mexico;  afraid  of  driving  off  the  conservative  men;  you  think  it 
is  wise  to  wait  until  after  the  election.  I should  he  glad  to  have  confidence  enough  in 
the  sincerity  of  the  other  side  of  the  Chamber  to  suppose  that  they  had  sufficient  courage 
to  bring  forward  a law  to  carry  out  their  principles  to  their  logical  conclusions.  I find 
nothing  of  that.  They  wish  to  agitate,  to  excite  the  people  of  the  North  against  the 
South  to  get  votes  for  the  Presidential  election  ; but  thej'  shrink  from  carrying  out  their 
measures  lest  they  .might  throw  off  some  conservative  voters  who  do  not  like  the  Demo- 
cratic party. 

But,  sir,  if  the  Senator  from  New  York,  in  the  event  that  he  is  made  President,  intends 
to  carry  out  his  principles  to  their  logical  conclusions,  let  us  see  where  they  will  lead  him. 
In  the  same  speech  that  I read  from  a few  minutes  ago,  I find  the  following.  Addressing 
the  people  of  Ohio,  he  said: 

“You  blush  not  at  these  things,  because  they  have  become  as  familiar  as  household  words;  and  your 
pretended  Free-Soil  allies  claim  peculiar  merit  for  maintaing  these  miscalled  guarantees  of  slavery,  which 
they  find  in  the  national  compact.  Does  not  all  this  prove  that  the  Whig  party  have  kept  up  with  the 
spirit  of  the  age;  that  it  is  as  true  aud  faithful  to  human  freedom  as  the  inert  conscience  of  the  American 
people  will  permit  it  to  be?  What  then,  you  say,  can  nothing  be  done  for  freedom,  because  the  public 
conscience  remains  inert?  Yes,  much  can  be  done,  everything  can  be  done.  Slavery  van  be  limited  to 
its  present  bounds.” 

That  is  the  first  thing  that  can  be  done — slavery  can  be  limited  to  its  present  bounds. 
What  else? 

“ It  can  be  ameliorated.  It  can  and  must  be  abollshed,  and  you  and  I can  and  must  do  it.” 

There  you  find  are  two  propositions  ; first,  slavery  was  to  be  limited  to  the  States  in 
which  it  was  then  situated.  It  did  not  then  exist  in  any  Territory.  Slavery  was  confined 
to  the  States.  The  first  propositson  was  that  slavery  must  be  restricted  and  confined  to 
those  States.  The  second  was  that  he,  as  a New  Yorker,  and  they,  the  people  of  Ohio, 
must  and  would  abolish  it;  that  is  to  say  abolish  it  in  the  States.  They  could  abolish 
it  no  where  else.  Every  appeal  they  make  to  northern  prejudice  and  passion,  is  against 
the  institution  of  slavery  everywhere,  and  they  would  not  he  able  to  retain  their  aboli- 
tion allies,  the  rank  and  file,  unless  they  held  out  the  hope  that  it  was  the  mission  of  the 
Republican  party,  if  successful,  to  abolish  slavery  in  the  States  as  well  as  in  the  Territo- 
ries of  the  Union. 

And  again  in  the  same  speech,  the  Senator  from  New  York  advised  the  people  to  dis- 
regard constitutional  obligations  in  these  words: 

“But  we  must  begin  deeper  and  lower  than  the  composition  and  combination  of  factions  or  parties, 
wherein  the  strength  aud  security  of  slavery  lie.  You  answer  that  it  lies  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  and  the  constitutions  and  laws  of  slaveholding  States  Not  at  all.  It  is  in  the  erroneous  sentiment 
of  the  American  people  Constitutions  and  laws  can  no  more  rise  above  the  virtue  of  the  people  than  the 
limpid  stream  can  climb  above  its  native  spring.  Inculcate  the  love  of  freedom  and  the  equal  rights  of 
man  under  the  paternal  roof;  see  to  it  that  they  are  taught  in  the  schools  and  in  the  churches;  ref/rm 
your  own  code;  extend  a cordial  welcome  to  the  fugitive  who  lays  his  weary  limbs  at  your  door , and 
defend  him  as  you  would  your  paternal  gods;  correct  your  own  error,  that  slavery  is  a constitional 
guarantee  which  may  not  be  released,  and  ought  not  to  be  relinquished.” 

I know  they  tell  us  that  all  this  is  to  be  done  according  to  the  Constitution  ; they 
would  not  violate  the  Constitution  except  so  far  as  the  Constitution  violates  the  law  of 


5 


God — that  is  all — and  they  are  to  be  the  judges  of  how  far  the  Constitution  does  violate 
| the  law  of  God.  They  say  that  every  clause  of  the  Constitution  that  recognizes  property 
■ in  slaves,  is  in  violation  of  the  Divine  law,  and  hence  should  not  be  obeyed  ; ar.d  with 
i that  interpretation  of  the  Constitution,  they  turn  to  the  South  and  say,  “We  will  give 
you  all  your  rights  under  the  Constitution  as  we  explain  it!” 

Then  the  Senator  devoted  about  a third  of  his  speech  to  a very  beautiful  homily  on 
the  glories  of  our  Union.  All  that  he  has  said,  all  that  any  other  man  has  ever  said,  all 
[ that  the  most  eloquent  tongue  can  ever  utter,  in  behalf  of  the  blessings  and  the  advanta- 
ges of  this  glorious  Union,  I fully  indorse.  But  still,  sir,  I am  prepared  to  say,  that  the 
Union  is  glorious  only  whenyhe  Constitution  is  preserved  inviolate.  He  eulogized  the 
Union.  I,  too,  am  for  the  Union;  I indorse  the  eulogies;  but  still,  what  is  the  Union 
worth,  unless  the  Constitution  is  preserved  and  maintained  inviolate  in  all  its  provisions? 

Sir,  I have  no  faith  in  the  Union-loving  sentiments  of  those  who  will  not  carry  out  the 
Constitution  in  good  faith,  as  our  fathers  made  it.  Professions  of  fidelity  to  the  Union 
will  be  taken  for  naught,  unless  they  are  accompanied  by  obedience  to  the  Constitution 
upon  which  the  Union  rests.  I have  a right  to  insist  that  the  Constitution  shall  be  main- 
tained inviolate  in  all  its  parts,  not  only  that  which  suits  the  temper  of  the  North,  but 
I every  clause  of  that  Constitution,  whether  you  like  it  or  dislike  it.  Tour  oath  to  support 
the  Constitution  binds  you  to  every  line,  word,  and  syllable  of  the  instrument.  You 
have  no  right  to  say  that  any  given  clause  is  in  violation  of  the  Divine  law,  and  that, 
therefore,  you  will  not  observe  it.  The  man  who  disobeys  any  one  clause,  on  the  pretext 
that  it  violates  the  Divine  law,  or  on  any  other  pretext,  violates  his  oath  of  office. 

But,  sir,  what  a commentary  is  this  pretext  that  the  Constitution  is  a violation  of  the 
i Divine  law,  upon  those  revolutionary  fathers  whose  eulogies  we  have  heard  here  to-day. 
Did  the  framers  of  that  instrument  make  a Constitution  in  violation  of  the  law  of  God? 
If  so,  how  do  your  consciences  allow  you  to  take  the  oath  of  office?  If  the  Senator 
from  New  York  still  holds  to  his  declaration  that  the  clause  in  the  Constitution  relative 
| to  fugitive  slaves  is  a violation  of  the  Divine  law,  how  dare  he,  as  an  honest  man,  take 
au  oath  to  support  the  instrument?  Did  he  understand  that  he  was  defying  the  authority 
of  Heaven  when  he  took  the  oath  to  support  that  instrument? 

Thus,  we  see,  the  radical  difference  between  the  Republican  party-  and  the  Democratic 
i party,  is  this:  we  stand  by  the  Constitution  as  our  fathers  made’it,  aud  by  the  decisions 
of  the  constituted  authorities  as  they  are  pronounced  in  obedience  to  the  Constitution. 
They  repudiate  the  instrument,  substitute  their  own  will  for  that  of  the  constituted  au- 
thorities, annul  such  provisions  as  their  fanaticism,  or  prejudice,  or  policy,  may  declare 
1 to  be  in  violation  of  God’s  law,  and  then  say,  “We  will  protect  all  your  rights  under  the 
Constitution  as  expounded  by  ourselves;  but  not  as  expounded  by  the  tribunal  created 
for  that,  purpose.” 

Mr.  President,  I shall  not  occupy  further  time  in  the  discussion  of  this  question  to- 
night. I did  not  intend  to  utter  a word ; and  I should  not  have  uttered  a word  upon  the 
subject,  if  the  Senator  from  New  York  had  not  made  a broad  arraignment  of  the  Demo- 
! eratic  party,  and  especially  of  that  portion  of  the  action  of  the  party  for  which  I was 
! most  immediately  responsible.  Everybody  knows  that  I brought  forward  aud  helped  to 
carry  through  the  Kansas-Nebraska  act,  and  that  I was  active  in  support  of  the  compro- 
mise measures  of  1850.  I have  heard  bad  faith  attached  to  the  Democratic  party  for 
1 that  act  too  long  to  be  willing  to  remain  silent  and  seem  to  sanction  it  even  by  tacit  ac- 
quiescence. 

Mr.  TRUMBULL  having  replied  to  Mr.  DOUGLAS,  he  responded  as  follows: 

I have  but  a few  words  to  say,  in  reply  to  my,  colleague ; and  first  on  the  question, 
whether  Illinois  was  a slave  Territory  or  not;  and  whether  we  ever  had  slavery  in  the 
State.  I dislike  technical  denials,  conveying  an  idea  contrary  to  the  fact.  My  colleague 
well  knows,  and  so  do  I,  that,  practically,  we  had  slaves  there  while  a Territory,  and  after 
we  became  a State.  I have  seen  him  dance  to  the  music  of  a negro  slave  in  Illinois  many 
a time,  and  I have  danced  to  the  same  music  myself.  (Laughter.)  We  have  both  had 
the  same  negro  servants  to  black  our  boots  and  wait  upon  us,  and  they  were  held  as  slaves. 
We  know,  therefore,  that  slavery  did  exist  in  the  State  in  fact,  and  slavery  did  exist  in 
the  Territory  in  fact ; and  his  denial  relates  exclusively  to  the  question  whether  slavery 
was  legal.  Whether  legal  or  not,  it  existed  in  fact.  The  master  exercised  his  dominion 
over  the  slave,  and  those  negroes  were  held  as  slaves  until  1847,  when  we  established  the 
new  constitution.  There  are  gentlemen  around  me  here,  who  know  the  fact — gentlemen 
who  were  nursed  by  slaves  in  Illinois.  No  man  familiar  with  the  history  of  Illinois  will 
deny  the  fact.  The  quibble  is,  that  the  territorial  laws  authorizing  the  introduction  of 
slaves  were  void  because  the  ordinance  of  1787  said  slavery  was  prohibited. 

Notwithstanding  that  ordinance,  the  old  French  inhabitants,  who  had  slaves  before  the 
ordinance,  paid  no  attention  to  it,  and  held  slaves  still.  Slaves  were  held  there  all  the 
time  that  Illinois  was  a Territory;  and  after  it  became  a State  they  were  held  till  they 
all  died  out,  and  their  children  became  emancipated  under  the  constitution.  It  is  a fact; 
we  all  know  it.  That  gentleman  has  seen  many  of  those  old  French  slaves,  who  were 
held  in  defiance  of  the  ordinance.  Whether  they  were  lawfully  held  or  not,  the  territo- 
rial authorities  sustained  the  rights  of  the  master.  Not  only  were  slaves  held  by  the 
French  before  the  ordinance,  but  the  Territorial  Legislature  passed  a law  in  substance  to 
this  effect:  any  citizen  might  go  to  Kentucky,  or  any  other  State  or  Territory,  where 


sense 

the  l,ri 


slaves  were  held,  and  bring  slaves  into  the  Territory  of  Illinois,  take  them  to  a county 
court,  and  in  open  court  enter  into  an  indenture  by  which  the  slave  and  his  posterity  were 
to  serve  him  for  ninety-nine  years  ; and  in  the  event  that  the  slave  refused  to  enter  into  the 
indenture,  the  master  should  have  a certain  time  to  take  him  out  of  the  Terrtory  and  sell 
him.  The  Senator  now  says  that  law  was  not  valid.  Valid  or  not,  it  was  executed ; slaves 
were  introduced,  and  they  were  held  ; they  were  used  ; they  were  worked  ; and  they  died 
slaves.  That  is  the  fact.  I have  had  handed  to  me  a book  showing  the  number  of  slaves 
in  Illinois  at  the  taking  of  the  various  censuses,  by  which  it  appears  that,  when  the  census 
of  1810  was  taken,  there  were  in  Illinois  168  slaves;  in  1820,  917  ; in  1830,  747  ; and  in 
1840,  831.  In  1850  there  were  none,  for  the  reason  that,  in  1847,  we  adopted  a new  con- 
stitution that  prohibited  slavery  entirely,  and  by  that  time  they  bad  nearly  all  died. 
The  census  shows  that  at  one  time  there  were  as  many  as  nine  hundred  slaves,  and  at  all 
tinies  the  dominion  of  the  master  was  maintained. 

The  fact  is,  that  the  people  of  the  Territory  of  Illinois,  when  it  was  a Territory,  were 
almost  all  from  the  southern  States,  particularly  from  Kentucky  and  Tennessee.  The 
southern  end  of  the  State  was  the  only  part  at  first  settled — that  part  called  Egypt- — 
because  it  is  the  land  of  letters  and  of  plenty.  Civilization  and  learning  all  originated 
in  Egypt.  The  northern  part  of  the  State,  where  the  political  friends  of  my  colleague 
now  preponderate,  was  then  in  the  possession  of  the  Indians,  and  so  were  northern  Indi- 
ana and  northern  Ohio;  and  a Yankee  could  not  get  to  Illinois  at  all,  unless  he  passed 
down  through  Virginia  and  over  into  Tenuessee  and  through  Kentucky.  The  consequence 
was,  that  ninety-nine  out  of  a hundred  of  the  settlers  were  from  the  slave  States.  They 
carried  the  old  family  servants  with  them,  and  kept  them.  They  -were  told  “Here  is  an 
ordinance  of  Congress  passed  against  your  holding  them.”  They  said,  “ What  has  Con- 
gress to  do  with  our  domestic  institutions ; Congress  had  better  mind  its  own  business,  and 
let  us  alone;  we  know  what  we  want  better  than  Congress;”  and  hence  they  passed 
this  law  to  bring  them  in  and  make  them  indentured.  Under  that,  they  established  sla- 
very and  held  slaves  as  long  as  they  wanted  them.  When  they  assembled  to  make  the 
constitution  of  Illinois,  in  1818,  for  admission  iuto  the  Union,  nearly  every  delegate  to 
the  convention  brought  his  negro  along  with  him  to  black  his  boots,  play  the  fiddle,  wait 
upon  him,  and  take  care  of  his  room.  They  had  a jolly  time  there;  they  were  dancing 
people,  frolicsome  people,  people  who  enjoyed  life;  they  had  the  old  French  habits. 
Slaves  were  just  as  thick  there  as  blackberries. 

But  they  said  “Experience  proves  that  it  is  not  going  to  be  profitable  in  this  climate.” 
There  were  no  scruples  about  it.  Every  one  of  them  was  nursed  by  it.  Ilia  mother  and 
bis  father  held  ■slaves.  They  had  no  scruples  about  its  being  right,  but  they  said,  “We 
cannot  make  any  money  by  it,  and  as  our  State  runs  way  off  north  up  to  those  eternal 
snows,  perhaps  we  shall  gain  population  faster  if  we  stop  slavery  and  invite  in  the  north- 
ern population  ;”  and.  as  a matter  of  political  policy,  State  policy,  they  prohibited  slavery 
themselves.  How  did  they  prohibit  it?  Not  by  emancipating,  setting’ at  liberty,  the 
slaves  then  in  the  State,  for  I believe  that  has  never  been  done  by  any  legislative  body 
in  America,  and  I doubt-  whether  any  one  will  ever  arrogate  to  itself  the  right  to  divest 
property  already  there  ; but  the}'  provided  that  all  slaves  then  in  the  State  should  remain 
slaves  for  life  ; that  all  indentured  persons  should  fulfill  the  terms  of  their  indentures. 
Ninely-nine  years  was  about  long  enough,  I reckon,  for  grown  persons  at  least. 

All  persons  of  slave  parents,  after  a certain  time,  were  to  be  free  at  a certain  age,  and 
all  btrn  after  a certain  other  period,  were  to  be  free  at  their  birth.  It  was  a gradual 
system  of  emancipation.  Hence,  I now  repeat,  that  so  long  as  the  ordinance  of  1787, 
passed  by  Congress,  said  Illinois  should  not  have  slavery,  she  did  have  it;  and  the  very 
first  day  that  our  people  arrived  at  that  condition  that  they  could  do  as  they  pleased,  to 
wit,  when  they  became  a State,  they  adopted  a system  of  gradual  emancipation  ; but  still 
slavery  continued  in  the  State,  as  the  census  of  i 820,  the  census  of  1830,  and  the  census 
of  1840,  show,  until  the  new  constitution  of  1847,  when  nearly  all  those  old  slaves  had 
died  out,  and  probably  there  were  not  a half  dozen  alive.  That  was  the  way  slavery 
was  introduced  and  expired  in  Illinois.  Whatever  quibbles  there  may  he  about  legal 
construction,  legal  right,  these  are  the  facts. 

Look  into  the  territorial  legislation,  and  you  will  find  as  rigorous  a code  for  the  protec- 
tion of  slave  property  as  in  any  State  ; a code  prescribing  the  control  of  the  master,  pro- 
viding that  if  a negro  slave  should  leave  his  master’s  farm  without  leave,  or  in  the  night 
time,  he  should  be  punished  by  so  many  stripes,  and  if  he  committed  such  an  offence  he 
should  receive  so  many  stripes,  and  so  on  ; as  rigorous  a code  as  ever  existed  in  any 
southern  State  of  this  Union.  Not  only  that,  but  after  the  State  came  into  the  Union, 
the  State  of  Illinois  reenacted  that  code,  and  continued  it  up  to  the  time  that  slavery  died 
out  under-the  operation  of  the  State  constitution. 

I dislike,  sir,  to  have  a controversy  with  my  colleague  about  historical  facts.  I suppose 
the  Senate  of  the  United  States  has  no  particular  interest  in  the  early  history  of  Illinois, 
but  it  lias  become  obligatory  on  me  to  vindicate  my  statement  to  that  extent. 

Now,  sir,  a word  about  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise.  I have  had  occasion 
to  refer  to  that  before  in  the  Senate,  and  I am  sorry  to  have  to  refer  to  it  again. 

My  colleague  arraigns  me  as  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Territories  against  myself 
as  a member  of  the  Senate  in  1854,  upon  the  Nebraska  bill.  He  says  that,  as  chairman 
of  the  committee,  I reported  that  we  did  not  see  proper  to  depart  from  the  example  of 


illeii" 
fferritt 
giving 
’ But 
base 
ligM 
posea 
preeis 
ifiicl 
Is 

SO  at 

lib 

that 

mao 

si'h 

tbit 

firs1 

jet! 

opi 

Soi 

iti 

at 

Hi 

k1 

tl 

\I 

tl 

n 

l1 

c 

I 

1 


7 


1S50;  that  as  the  Mexican  laws  were  not  then  repealed  in  terms,  we  did  not  propose  in 
terms  to  repeal  the  Missouri  restriction,  but — there  the  Senator  stops,  and  there  the  es- 
:~7  sense  of  the  report  begins — but,  the  report  added,  this  committee  proposes  to  carry  out 
,-i  .the  principles  embodied  in  the  compromise  measures  of  1S50  in  precise  language,  and 
then  we  go  on  to  state  what  those  principles  were;  and  one  was,  that  the  people  of  a 
:i  Territory  should  settle  the  question  of  slavery  for  themselves,  and  we  reported  a bill 
■ giving  then:  that  power. 

: But  inasmuch  as  the  power  to  introduce  slavery,  notwithstanding  the  Mexican  laws, 

••->  was  conferred  on  the  Territorial  Legislatures  under  the  compromise  measures  of  1S50,  the 
~_i  right  to  introduce  it  into  Kansas,  notwithstanding  the  Missouri  restriction,  was  also  pro- 
. ; posed  !o  be  conferred  without  expressly  repealing  the  restriction.  The  legal  effect  was 
precisely  the  same.  Afterwards  some  gentlemen  said  they  would  rather  have  the  legal 
A I effect  expressed  in  plain  language. 

I said,  ‘'if  you  want  a repealing  act,  have  it;  it  does  not  alter  the  legal  effect.”  I said 
, so  at  the  time,  as  the  debates  show  ; and  hence  I put  in  the  express  provision  that  the 
1 Missouri  act  was  thereby  repealed.  It  did  not  change  the  legal  effect  of  the  bill ; but 
that  variation  of  language  has  been  the  staple  of  a great  many  stump  speeches,  a great 

- ! many  miserable  quibbles  of  county  court  lawyers,  a great  many  attempts  to  prove  ineon- 
-i  sistency  by  small  politicians  in  the  country.  Be  it  so.  The  people  understand  that 

I thing.  The  object  I had  in  view  was  to  allow  the  people  to  do  as  they  pleased.  The 
1-  first  bill  accomplished  that ; the  amendment  accomplished  it.  Whether  that  was  the  ob- 
ject of  others  or  not,  is  another  question.  That  was  my  object.  The  two  bills  in  my 
: f opinion  had  the  same  legal  effect;  but  I said  if  auy  one  doubts  it,  I will  make  it  plain. 

- | Some  said  '‘we  doubt  whether  that  gives  the  right.”  Then  I made  it  plain  and  brought 
j it  in  in  express  terms,  and  he  calls  a change  of  language,  without  varying  the  legal  effect, 

I a change  of  policy.  My  colleague  is  welcome  to  make  the  most  out  of  that.  I have  had 

: that  arraignment  over  and  over  again. 

The  Senator  has  some  doubt  as  to  whether  I am  in  good  standing  in  my  own  party  ; 

I whether  I am  a good  representative  of  northwestern  Democracy.  I have  nothing  to  say 
: | about  that.  I will  allow  the  people  to  speak  in  their  conventions  on  that  subject. 

1 Whether  I represent  the  Democracy  of  Illinois  or  not,  I shall  not  say.  The  people  un- 
; derstand  all  that.  I can  only  say  that  I have  been  in  the  Democratic  party  all  my  life, 

; j and  I know  what  our  Democrats  mean.  My  colleague  indorsed  and  approved  the  com- 
j promise  measures  of  1850.  He  was  a Democrat  a few  years  ago.  Even  in  1856,  he  de- 
clared, I believe,  that  he  could  not  vote  for  me,  if  nominated,  but  be  would  vote  for  Mr. 
Buchanan  ; but,  after  the  nomination,  he  did  not  like  the  platform,  and  he  went  over.  I 
have  no  objection  to  that;  it  is  all  right  enough.  I never  intended  to  taunt  him  with  in- 
consistency ; but  I do  not  think  he  is  as  safe  and  as  authoritative  an  expounder  of  the 
Republican  party  as  the  Senator  from  New  York.  The  Senator  from  New  York  says  that 
a State  that  does  not  allow  a negro  to  vote  on  an  equality  with  a white  man  is  a slave 
State.  I read  bis  speech  here  to  day.  I suppose  the  Senator  from  New  York  is  a pretty 
good  Republican.  I thought  he  spoke  with  some  authority  for  his  party.  I did  not  sup- 
pose those  neophytes  who  had  just  come  into  the  party  were  going  to  unsettle  and  un- 
horse the  leader  and  embodiment  of  the  party  so  quickly,  and  prescribe  a p!atfor?i  that 
would  rule  out  the  Senator  from  New  York.  I must  be  permitted,  therefore,  to  take  the 
authority  of  the  leaders  of  the  party  in  preference  to  those  who  are  kept  in  the  rank  and 
file  until  they  have  served  an  apprenticeship.  (Laughter.) 

The  Senator  from  Rew  York  says  it  is  slavery  not  to  allow  the  negro  to  vote.  Well, 
sir,  I hold  that  that  is  political  slavery.  If  you  disfranchise  a man,  you  make  bin  a po- 
litical slave.  Deprive  a white  man  of  a voice  in  his  government,  and,  politically,  he  is  a 
slave.  Hence  the  inequality  you  create  is  slavery  to  that  extent.  My  colleague  will 
not  allow  a negro  to  vote.  He  lives  too  far  south  in  Illinois  for  that,  decidedly.  He  has 
to  expound  the  creed  down  in  Egypt.  They  have  other  expositions  up  north.  The  creed 
is  pretty  black  in  the  north  end  of  the  State  ; about  the  center  it  is  a pretty  good  mulatto, 
and  it  is  .almost  white  when  you  get  down  into  Egypt.  It  assumes  paler  shades  as  you  go 
south.  The  Democrats  of  Illinois  have  one  creed,  and  we  can  proclaim  it  everywhere  alike. 

The  Se.ti.tor,  my  colleague,  complains  that  I represent  his  party  to  be  in  favor  of  negro 
equality.  No  such  thing,  says  he;  “I  tell  my  colleague  to  his  teeth  it  is  not  so.”  There 
is  something  very  fearful  in  the  manner  in  which  he  said  it!  Senators  know  that  he  is  a 
dangerous  man  who  says  things  to  a man’s  teeth,  and  I shall  be  very  cautious  bow  I re- 
ply. But  he  says  he  does  hold  that  by  the  law  of  God  the  negro  and  the  white  man  are 
created  equal;  that  is,  he  says,  in  a state  of  nature;  and,  therefore,  he  says  he  indorses 
that  clause  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  as  including  the  negro  as  well  as  the  white 
man.  I do  not  think  I misstate  my  colleague.  He  thinks  that  clause  of  the  Declaration 
of  Independence  includes  the  negro  as  well  as  the  white  man.  He  declares,  therefore, 
that  the  negro  and  the  while  mau  were  created  equal.  What  does  that  Declaration  also 
say  : “We  hold  these  truths  to  be  self-evident;  that  they  are  endowed  by  their  Creator 
with  certain  inalienable  rights,  among  which  are  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happi- 
ness.” If  the  negro  and  the  white  man  are  created  equal,  and  that  equality  is  an  inaliena- 
ble right,  by  what  authority  is  my  colleague  and  his  party  going  to  deprive  the  negro  of 
that  inalienable  right  which  he  got  directly  from  God?  He  says  the  Republican  party  is 
not  in  favor  of  according  to  the  negro  an  inalienable  right  that  he  received  directly  from 


8 


his  Maker.  Oh,  no ; he  tells  me  to  my  teeth  that  they  are  not  in  favor  of  that ; they  will 
not  obey  the  laws  of  God  at  all.  Their  creed  is  to  take  away  inalienable  rights.  Well, 
I have  found  that  out  before,  and  that  is  just  the  reason  1 complain  of  them,  that  they 
are  for  taking  away  inalienable  rights. 

If  they  will  cling  to  the  doctrine  that  the  Declaration  of  Independence  conferred  certain 
inalienable  rights,  among  which,  we  are  told,  is  equality  between  the  white  man  and  the 
negro,  they  are  bound  to  make  the  human  laws  they  establish  conform  t.o  those  God-given 
rights  which  are  inalienable.  If  the}’  believe  the  first  proposition,  as  honest  men,  they  are 
bound  to  carry  the  principle  to  its  logical  conclusion,  and  give  the  negro  his  equality  and 
voice  in  the  Government;  let  him  vote  at  elections,  hold  office,  serve  on  juries,  make  him 
judge,  Governor,  (“Senator.”)  No,  they  cannot  make  him  a Senator,  because  the  Su- 
preme Court  has  decided  that  he  is  not  a citizen.  The  Dred  Scott  decision  is  in  the  way. 
Perhaps  that  is  the  reason  of  the  objection  to  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  that  a negro  can- 
not be  a Senator.  1 say,  if  yon  hold  that  the  Almighty  created  the  negro  the  equal  of 
the  white  man,  and  that  equality  be  an  inalienable  right,  you  are  hound  to-  confer  the 
elective  franchise  and  every  other  privilege  of  political  equality  on  the  negro.  Tbs 
Senator  from  New  York  stands  up  to  it  like  a man.  His  logic  drove  him  there,  arid  he 
had  the  honesty. to  avow  the  consequence  of  his  own  doctrine.  That  is  to  say,  he  did 
it  before  the  Harper’s  Ferry  raid.  He  did  not  say  it  quite  as  plainly  to-day;  for  I will 
1.1. . ci.  iator  from  New  York  the  justice  to  say,  that  iu  his  speech  to-day,  I think  he 
most  successful  effort,  considered  as  an  attempt  to  conceal  what  lie  meant 
.)  He  dealt  in  vague  generalities;  he  dealt  in  disclaimers  and  general  denials; 
vered  it  all  up  with  a verbiage  that  would  allow’  anybody  to  infer  just  what  he 
ut  not  to  commit  the  Senator  to  anything;  and  to  let  the  country  know  that 
no  danger  from  the  success  of  the  Republican  party  ; that  they  did  not  mean 
; that  if  men,  believing  in  the  truth  of  their  doctrines,  did  go  and  commit  inva- 
ders, robberies,  and  treason,  all  they  had  to  do  was’ to  disavow  the  men  who 
! enough  to  believe  them,  and  they  are  not  responsible  for  the  consequences  of 
action ! 

r.  President,  I wish  my  colleague  was  equally  as  frank  as  the  Senator  from 
. That  Senator  is  in  favor  of  the  equality  of  the  negro  with  the  white  man, 
would  not  say  that  the  Almighty  guarantied  to  them  an  inalienable  right  of 
My  colleague  dare  not  deny  the  inalienable  rights  of  the  negro,  for  if  he  did, 
ionists  w'ould  quit  him.  He  dare  not  avow  it,  lest  the  old-line  Whigs  should 
hence  he  is  riding  double  on  this  question.  I have  no  desire  to  conceal  my 
And  I repeat  that  I do  not  believe  the  negro  race  is  any  part  of  the  governing 
thiseountry,  except  as  an  element  of  representation  in  the  manner  expressly 
a the  Constitution.  This  is  a white  man’s  Government,  made  by  white  men 
efit  of  white  men,  to  be  administered  by  white  men  and  nobody  else;  and  I 
■et  the  day  that  we  ever  allowed  the  negroes  to  have  a hand  in  its  adminie- 
bt  that  the  negro  is  not  entitled  to  any  privileges  at  all;  on  the  contrary,  I 
lumanit.y  requires  us  to  allow  the  unfortunate  negro  to  enjoy  all  the  rights 
ges  that  he  may  safely  exercise  consistent  with  the  good  of  society.  We  may, 
give  them  some  privileges  in  Illinois  that  would  not  be  safe  in  Mississippi; 
have  hut  few,  while  that  State  has  many.  We  will  take  care  of  our  negroes, 
pi  will  take  care  of  hers.  Each  has  a right  to  decide  for  itself  what  shall  be 
l of  the  negro  to  the  white  man  within  its  own  limits,  and  no  other  State  boa 
nterfere  with  its  determination. 

•rinciple  t!u.-e  is  no  “irrepressible  conflict;”  there  is  no  conflict  at  all.  If  we 
ke  care  of  our  • ,i-  negroes,  and  mind  our  own  business,  we  shall  get  along 

and  we  ask  our  southern  friends  to  do  the  same,  and  they  seem  pretty  well 

do  it.  Therefore,  I am  in  favor  of  just  firing  a broadside  into  our  Republican 
C there,  who  will  keep  interfering  with  other  people’s  business.  That  is  the 
have  of  tnem.  They  keep  holding  up  the  negro  for  us  to  worship,  and  when 
- e power,  they  will  not  give  him  the  rights  they  claim  for  him  ; they  will  not 

s inalienable  rights.  New  York  has  not  given  the  negro  those  inalienable 
ffrage  yet.  The  Senator  from  New  York  represents  a slave  State,  according 
speech;  because  New  York  does  not  allow  the  negro  to  vote  on  an  equality 
e man.  It  is  true,  in  New  York,  they  do  allow  a negro  to  vote,  if  he  owns 
$>'oU  worth  of  property,  but  not  without.  They  suppose  $250  just  compensates  for  the 
difference  between  a rich  Degro  and  a poor  white  man.  (Laughter.)  They  allow  the  rich 
negro  to  vote,  and  do  not  allow  the  poor  one;  and  the  Senator  from  New  York  thicks 

that  is  a system  of  slavery.  It  may  be;  let  New  York  decide  that;  it  is  her  business.  .1 

do  not  want  to  interfere  with  it.  Just  let  us  alone.  We  do  not  want  negro  suffrage.  We 
say  “non-interference;  hands  off.”  If  you  like  the  association  of  the  negroes  at  the  polls, 
that  is  your  business;  if  you  want  them  to  hold  office,  so  that  they  do  not  come  here, 
give  offices  to  them,  if  you  choose;  if  you  want  them  for  magistrates,  that  is  your  busi- 
ness; but  you  must  not  send  them  here;  because  we  do  not  allow  anybody  but  citizens 
to  hold  seats  on  this  floor  ; and,  thank  God,  the  Dred  Scott  case  has  decided  that  a negro 
is  not  a citizen. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  I hope  I shall  not  be  compelled  to  engage  further  in  the  discussion, 
and  I apologize  for  the  fact  that  I have  occupied  so  much  time. 


NON-I XTKRPEa E XCE  BY  CONGRESS  WITH  SLAVERY  IN  THE  TERRITORIES, 


SPEECH 

OF 

SENATOR  DOUGLAS,  OF  ILLINOIS, 

DELIVERED 

IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  MAY  15  & 16,  1860. 


The  Senate  having  under  consideration  the  resolutions 
submitted  by  Mr.  Davis  on  the  1st  of  March,  relative  to 
the  relations’ of  the  States,  and  the  rights  of  persons  and 
property  in  the  Territories,  and  the  duty  of  protecting 
slave  property  in  the  Territories,  when  a necessity  for  so 
doing  shall  exist — Mr.  DOUGLAS  said : 

Mr.  President:  I have  no  taste  and  very  little 
respect  for  that  species  of  discussion  which  con- 
sists in  assaults  on  the  personal  or  political  posi- 
tion of  any  Senator.  I have  no  desire  to  elevate 
myself  by  attempting  to  pull  down  others,  nor  to 
place  any  Senator  in  a false  position  before  his 
constituency.  I have  no  assault  to  make  upon 
anybody ; no  impeachment  of  the  record  of  any 
gentleman.  I am  willing  that  each  Senator  shall 
stand  before  the  country  and  his  own  constituen- 
cy on  the  record  which  he  has  made  for  himself. 
I do  not  complain  of  so  much  of  the  speech  of  the 
Senator  from  Mississippi  (Mr.  Davis)  as  arraigns 
my  political  position,  for  he  seems  to  have  deemed 
it  necessary  to  draw  a parallel  between  his  opin- 
ions and  my  own,  as  we  have  been  actors  for 
many  years  in  the  same  scenes,  involving  the 
same  issue  that  is  now  presented,  he  taking  the 
one  side  and  I the  other.  In  self-defence  it  may 
be  necessary  for  me  also  to  refer  to  the  position 
of  that  Senator  at  various  periods — with  a view 
of  illustrating  my  own  position — by  way  of  con- 
trast, as  we  always  differed  on  an  isolated  point. 

I shall  not  indulge  to-day  in  the  discussion  of 
any  abstract  theories  of  government,  much  less 
in  the  discussion  of  the  legal  questions  which  have 
lately  been  attempted  to  be  forced  on  the  Demo- 
cratic part}'  as  political  issues.  On  a former  oc- 
casion, when  forced  into  a discussion  by  the  At- 
torney Genetal  of  the  United  States,  the  law  offi- 
cer of  the  Government,  I did  amuse  myself  in  the 
discussion  of  certain  ‘legal  propositions  ; not  be- 
cause they  had  anything  to  do  with  the  political 
issues  before  the  country,  but  because  that  law 
officer  seemed  to  have  no  official  duties  to  occupy 
his  time,  and  I had  the  leisure  to  reply  to  him. 

The  principal  points  to  which  I shall  direct  my 
remarks  to-day,  and  the  sole  cause  of  my  making 
any  speech,  will  be  found  in  certain  extracts  from 
the  speech  of  the  Senator  from  Mississippi,  a few 
days  since.  I have  put  three  extracts  upon  paper 
together,  and  will  send  them  to  the  Secretary’s 
desk,  that  they  may  be  read.  They  will  consti- 
tute the  chief  text  to  which  my  remarks  will  be 
addressed. 


The  Secretary  read  the  following  extracts  from 
Mr.  Davis’s  speech  of  May  7 : 

“ It  is  well  known  to  those  who  have  been  associated 
with  me  in  the  two  Houses  of  Congress  that,  from  the  com- 
mencement of  the  question,  I have  been  the  determined 
opponent  of  what  is  called  squatter  sovereignty.  I never 
gave  it  countenance,  and  I am  now  least  of  all  disposed  to 
give  it  quarter.  In  1S48  it  made  its  appearance  for  good 
purposes.  It  was  ushered  in  by  a great  and  good  man. 
'He  brought  it  forward  because  of  that  distrust  which  ho 
had  in  the  capacity  of  the  Government  to  hear  the  rude 
shock  to  which  it  was  exposed.  His  conviction,  no  doubt, 
to  some  extent  sharpened  and  directed  his  patriotism,  and 
his  apprehension  led  him  to  a conclusion  to  which,  I doubt 
not,  to-day  he  adheres  as  tenaciously  as  ever ; but  from 
which  it  was  my  fortune,  good  or  ill,  lo  dissent  when  his 
letter  was  read  to  me  in  manuscript;  I being,  together 
with  some  other  persons,  asked  whether  or  not  it  should 
be  sent.  At  the  first  blush,  I believed  it  to  be  a fallacy — 
a fallacy  fraught  with  mischief;  that  it  escaped  an  issue 
which  was  upon  us  which  it  was  our  duty  to  meet;  that  it 
escaped  it  by  a side  path,  which  led  to  danger.  I thought 
it  a fallacy  which  would  surely  be  exploded.  I doubted 
then,  and  still  more  for  some  time  afterwards,  when  held 
to  a dread  responsibility  for  the  position  which  I occupied — 
I doubted  whether  I should  live  to  see  that  fallacy  ex- 
ploded. It  has  been.  Let  Kansas  speak — the  first  great 
field  on  which  the  trial  was  made.  What  was  the  conse- 
quence? The  Federal  Government  withdrawing  con- 
trol, learning  the  contending  sections,  excited  to  the  high- 
est point  upon  this  question,  each  to  send  forth  its  army. 
Kansas  became  the  battle  field,  and  Kansas  the  cry  which, 
well  nigh  led  to  civil  war.  TIris  was  the  first  fruit.  More 
deadly  than  the  fatal  upas,  its  effect  was  not  limited  to  the 
mere  spot  of  ground  on  which  the  dew  fell  from  its  leaves,, 
but  it  spread 'throughout  the  United  States ; it  kindled  all 
which  had  been  collected  for  years  of  inflammable  mate- 
rial. It  was  owing  to  the  strength  of  our  Government  and 
the  good  sense  of  the  quiet  masses  of  the  people  that  it  did 
not  wrap  our  oountry  in  one  widespread  conflagration. 

■What  right  had  Congress  then,  or  what  right  has  it  now, 
to  abdicate  any  power  conferred  upon  it  as  trustee  of  the 
States?”  * ******** 

“ In  1850,  following  the  promulgation  of  this  notion  of 
squatter  sovereignty,'  we  had  the  idea  of  non-intervention 
introduced  into  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  and  it  is 
strange  to  me  how  that  idea  has  expanded.  It  seems  to 
have  been  more  malleable  than  gold,  to  have  been  ham- 
mered out  to  an  extent  that  covers  boundless  regions  un- 
discovered by  those  who  proclaimed  the  doctrine.  Non- 
intervention then  rheant,  as  the  debates  show,  that  Con- 
gress should  neither  prohibit  nor  establish  slavery  in  the 
Territories.  That  I hold  to  now.  Will  any  one  suppose 
that  Congress  then  meant  by  non-intervention  that  Con- 
gress should  legislate  in  no  regard  in  respect  to  property 
in  slaves?  Why,  sir,  the  very  acts  which  they  passed  at 
the  time  refute  it.  There  is  the  fugitive  slave  law,  and 
that  abomination  of  law  which  assumed  to  confiscate  the 
property  of  a citizen  who  should  attempt  to  bring  it  into 
this  District  with  intent  to  remove  it  to  sell  it  at  some  other 
time  to  some  other  place.  Congress  acted  then  upon  the 
subject,  acted  beyond  the  limit  of  its  authority  as  I be- 
lieved, confidently  believed ; and  if  ever  that  act  comes 
before  the  Supreme  Court,  I feel  satisfied  that  they  will 


2 


declare  it  null  and  void.”  ****** 

“By  what  species  of  legerdemain  this  doctrine  of  non- 
intervention has  come  to  extend  to  a paralysis  of  the  Gov- 
ernment on  the  whole  subject  to  exclude  the  Congress 
from  any  kind  of  legislation  whatever,  I am  at  a loss  to 
conceive.  Certain  it  is,  it  was  not  the  theory  of  that  pe- 
riod, and  it  was  not  contended  for  in  all  the  controversies 
xve  had  then.  I had  no  faith  in  it  then  ; I considered  it  a 
sham ; I considered  that  the  duty  of  Congress  ought  to  be 
performed;  that  the  issue  was  before  us,  and  ought  to  be 
met,  the  sooner  the  better ; that,  truth  would  prevail  if  pre- 
sented to  the  people;  borne  down  to-day,  it  would  rise  up 
to-morrow;  and  I stood  then  on  the  same  general  plea 
which  I am  making  now.  The  Senator  from  Illinois  (Mr. 
Douglas)  and  myself  differed  at  that  time,  as  I presume 
we  do  now.  We  differed  radically  then.  He  opposed 
every  proposition  which  I made:  voting  against  a propo- 
sition to  give  power  to  a Territorial  Legislature  to  protect 
slave  property  which  should  be  taken  there ; voting  against 
a proposition  to  remove  the  obstruction  of  the  Mexican 
laws;  voting  fora  proposition  to  exclude  the  conclusion 
that  slavery  might  be  taken  there;  voting  for  the  proposi- 
tion expressly  to  prohibit  its  introduction;  voting  for  the 
proposition  to  keep  in  force  the  laws  of  Mexico  which 
■prohibited  it.  Some  of  these  votes,  it  is  but  just  to  him  I 
•should  say,  I think  he  gave  perforce  of  his  instructions: 
hut  others  of  them,  I think  it  is  equally  fair  to  assert,  were 
outside  of  the  limits  of  any  instructions  under  which  he 
acted. 

“In  1854,  advancing  in  this  same  general  line  of  thought, 
the  Congress,  in  enacting  territorial  bills,  left  out  a provi- 
sion which  had  always  before  entered  them,  requiring  the 
Legislature  of  the  Territory  to  submit  its  laws  to  the  Con- 
gress-of  the  United  States.  It.  was  sometimes  assumed 
that  this  was  the  recognition  of  the  power  of  the  Territor- 
ial Legislature  to  exercise  plenary  legislation,  as  might 
that  ol  a State.  It  will  be  remembered  that,  when  our 
present  form  of  Government  was  instituted,  there  were 
those  who  believed  the  Federal  Government  should  have 
the  power  of  revision  over  the  laws  of  a State.  It  was 
long  'and  ably  contended  for  in  the  convention  which 
formed  the  Constitution;  and  one  of  the  compromises 
which  was  made  was,  escaping  from  that,  to  lodge  the 
power  in  the  Supreme  Court  to  decide  all  questions  of  con- 
stitutional law. 

“ But  did  this  omission  of  the  obligation  to  send  here  the 
Jaws  of  the  Territories  work  this  grant  of  power  to  the  Ter- 
ritorial Legislature  ? . Certainly  "not;  and  that  it  did  not, 
is  evinced  by  the  fact  that,  at  a subsequent  peri-  d.  the  or- 
ganic.oet  v/as  revised,  because  the  legislation  of  the  Ter- 
ritory ofKai^sas  was  offensive  to  the  Congress  of  the  Uni- 
ted Slates.  -Congress  could  not  abdicate  its  authority;  it 
could  not  abandon  Us  trust;  and  when  it  omitted  the  re- 
quirement that  the  laws  should  be  sent  back,  it  created  a 
casus  which  required  it  to  act  without  the  official  records 
' being  laid  before  it,  as  they  would  have  been  if  the  obli- 
gation had  existed.  That  was  all  the  difference.” 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  Mr.  President 

Mr.  DAWS.  With  the  permission  of  the  Sen- 
ator from  Illinois,  I wish  to  say,  that  if  he  had 
submitted  to  me  those  extracts  as  the  text  upon 
which  be  was  going  tospeak,  I should  have  made 
some  verbal  corrections,  which  would  have  more 
clearly  expressed  013'  opinion.  However,  as  he 
has  joined  issue  with  me  upon  the  report  as  it 
stands/let  it  be;  but,  with  his  permission,  I wish 
to  say  a wordfiu  relation  to  a point  which  will 
not  at  all  affect  his  discourse,  but  which  bears 
upon  another.  It  is  with  regard  to  a gentleman 
referred  to  there  as  a good  and  great  man — and 
I cordially  believe  him  both;  the  history  of  the 
tknes  has  enabled  every  one  to  know  that  I re- 
■ ferred  to  Mr.  Cass.  I wish  to  sa3'  that  an  omis- 
sion at  the  close  of  a sentence,  after  the  word 
“sent,”  may  leave  the  inference  that  the  letter 
was  submitted  to  know  whether  it  was  to  be  sent 
to  the  person  to  whom  it  waB  addressed.  It 
would  be  an  error  if  any  one  supposed  so.  It, 
was  read  to  certain  gentlemen  to  ascertain,  if,  in 
their  view,  it  should  be  sent  out  as  an  expression 
.of... cur  orpioions,  as  an  exposition  of  the  party 


creed,  or  the  opinions  of  the  party  at  that  time. 
And  so,  in  relation  to  the  adhereuce  of  that  good 
and  great  man  to  the  opinion  he  then  expressed, 
it  implies,  what  I believe,  that  he  adheres  to  that 
opinion  as  an  abstract  opinion  still ; but  I should 
do  great  injustice  to  him  if  1 left  any  one  to  sup- 
pose that  I thought  that  he,  in  deiiance  of  the 
decision  of  the  .Supreme  Court,  still  adhered  to 
that  opinion,  and  had  not  yielded  his  entire  and 
implicit  acquiescence  in  the  decision  which  the 
court  has  given  upon  the  point. 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  I have  yielded  to  the  Sena- 
tor from  Mississippi  to  make  this  explanation, 
and  I am  gratified  that  he  has  had  an  opportu- 
nity to  make  it.  I did  not  submit  these  extracts 
to  him,  for  I took  it  for  granted  that  he  was  cor- 
rectly reported  in  the  Globe,  which  I found  on 
our  tables.  I heard  no  intimation  from  him  that 
he  had  been  rnisreported. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I do  not  sa}1  so.  I never  revise 
the  manuscript  of  the  reporters. 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  I on ly  desire  pow  to  say  to 
the  Senator  that,  while  I yielded  to  this  explana- 
tion, I shall  he  obliged  to  him  and  to  all  others 
if  the3^  will  allow  me  to  go  through  with  my  re- 
maiks  without  interruption,  (as  I did  in  his  case,) 
for  the  reason  that  I have  a great  deal  of  ground 
to  travel  over  to-da}’  in  this  debate,  which  will 
exhaust  my  strength,  and,  I fear,  your  patience: 
and  he  will  have  an  opportunity  of  replying  to 
me  when  I shall  be  through.  1 intend  to  treat 
him  fairly,  kindly,  and  eourleousl}’,  in  all  that  I 
have  to  say,  as  1 doubt  not  it  ever  has  been  his 
intention  to  treat  me  in  debate. 

With  this  explanation,  I shall  proceed  to  re- 
mark, that  the  facts  stated  in  the  copious  extracts 
from  the  Senator’s  speech,  which  have  been  read, 
conclusively  show  that  the  doctrine  of  squatter 
sovereignt3q  or  popular  sovereignty,  or  non-inter- 
vention, as  the  Senator  has  indifferently  st}7led  it 
in  different  parts  of  his  speech,  did  not  originate 
with  me,  in  its  application  to  the  Territories  of 
the  United  States;  that  it  was  distinctly  pro- 
claimed by  General  Cass  in  what  is  known  as  his 
Nicholson  letter,  that  the  issue  was  then  distinctly 
presented  to  the  country  in  the  contest  of  1848  ; 
that  General  Cass  became  the  nominee  of  the 
Democratic  party  with  a full  knowledge  of  his 
opinions  upon  the  question  of  non-intervention; 
that  he  was  supported  by  the  party  on  that  issue; 
that  the  same  doctrine  of  non-intervention  was 
incorporated  into  the  compromise  measures  of 
1850,  in  opposition  to  the  views  and  efforts  of  the 
Senator  from  Mississippi,  and  in  harmony  with 
the  views  and  efforts  of  myself;  that  it  was  reaf- 
firmed by  the  Democratic  party  in  the  Baltimore 
convention  of  1852;  that  General  Pierce  was 
elected  President  of  the  United  States  upon  this 
same  doctrine  of  nofi  intervention ; that  it  was 
again  affirmed  by  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States,  in  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  of  1S54;  and 
that  it  had  its  first  trial,  and  3’ielded  its  first  fruits, 
upon  the  plains  of  Kansas  in  1855  and  1856. 

These  facts  are  distinctly  and  positively  affirmed 
by  the  Senator  from  Mississippi.  These  facts 
conclusively  disprove  and  refute  the  charges  so 
often  made  in  the  Senate  Chamber  within  the  last 
. year,  so  erroneously  and  so  unjustly  made  against 


3 


me,  that  I have  changed  my  opinions  in  regard  to  ' 
this  question  since  1856.  The-Senator  from  Mis- 
sissippi has  done  me  a service:  he  has  searched  : 
the  records  with  a view  to  my  condemnation,  and 
the  result  of  his  researches  is  to  produce  the  most 1 
conclusive  and  incontestable  evidence  that  this 
charge  of  having  changed  my  opinions  on  this 
question,  and  which  was  made  the  pretext  for  my 
removal  from  the  Committee  on  Territories,  was 
not  true.  He  tells  you  frankly,  what  the  world 
knew  before,  that  he  had  always  opposed  this 
doctrine  of  non-intervention;  that”  he  and  I always 
differed  upon  that  point.  He  always  regarded  it 
as  a fallacy;  I as  a sound  principle.  He  claims 
that,  after  it  has  yielded  its  blighting  effects  upon 
the  plains  of  Kansas,  the  Supreme  Court  has  come 
to  the  rescue,  and  that  he  now  is  triumphantly  ' 
sustained  in  his  opposition  to  this  doctrine  in 
1 S4S,  1850  and  1-851.  Sir,  whether  we  have  heen 
sustained  and  out  consistency  vindicated  is  not 
so  material  as  to  find  out  which  is  right  in  the 
point  at  issue,  then  and  now,  between  the  Sena- 
tor  from  Mississippi  and  myself. 

I propose,  in  the  first  place,  to  invite  the  atten- 
tion of  the  Senate  to  the  fact,  that  the  doctrine 
of  non-intervention  by  Congress  with  slavery  in  \ 
the  Territories  was  brought'distinctly  before  the 
American  people,  and  especially  before  the  Dem- 
ocratic party,  in  1847,  with  a view  to  its  decision 
by  the  convention  of  the  party  that  was  to  assem- 
ble at  Baltimore  in  1S48.  The  Senator  has  rev 
ferred  to  the  letter  of  General  Cass,  known  as  the 
Nicholson  letter,  which  bears  date  the  24th  of 
December,  1847.  He  tells  the  Senate,  (what  most 
of  us  knew  personally  and  privately  who  were 
here  at  that  day,)  that  that  letter,  in  manuscript, 
was  passed  around  among  southern  and  north- 
western Democrats,  to  receive  their  sanction  be-  , 
lore  its  publication.  The  letter  was  prepared, 
and  in  private  circulation,  for  days  and  weeks 
before  the  date  which  it  now  bears  in  its  publica- 
tion. The  Senator  from  Mississippi  informs  us — 
and  unquestionably  with  entire  accuracy  of  re- 
collection— that  he,  at  the  time,  dissented  from  j 
the  doctrine  of  non-intervention,  as  stated  in  the 
Nicholson  letter.  Other  southern  Senators,  now 
opposed  to  me — at  any  rate,  other  leading  dis- ! 
tinguished  politicians,  I will  not  speak  of  Sena- 
tor;— would  not  he  able  to  say  that,  when  it  was  1 
submitted  to  them  for  their  approval  or  disap- 
proval, they  condemned  it  as  frankly  as  the  Sen- 
ator from  Mississippi  did.  During”this  period,  I 
while  this  letter  was  being  privately  circulated, 
to  see  how  far  it  would  receive  the  sanction  of  the 
representative  men  of  the  Democratic  party,  the  i 
especial  friend,  the  right  bower  of  General  Cass  I 
in  that  great  contest— Mr.  Daniel  S.  Dickinson,  of 
hew  York — presented  to  the  Senate  two  resolu- 
tions embodying  the  same  doctrine.  I will  ask  my 
friend  from  Ohio  to  read  those  two  resolutions/ 

Mr.  PUGH  read,  as  follows: 

“ Resolved,  That  true  policy  requires  the  Government 
of  the  United  States  to  strengthen  its  political  relations 
upon  this  continent  by  the  annexation  of  such  contiguous 
territory  as  may  conduce  to  tbat  end  and  can  be  justly 
obtained,  and  hat,  neither  in  such  acquisition  nor  in  the  1 
territorial  organization  thereof,  can  anv  conditions  be 
constitutionally  imposed,  or  institutions  be  provided  for 
jr  established,  inconsistent  with  the  rights  of  the  neopie  : 


! thereof  to  form  a free  sovereign  State,  with  the  powers  and 
privileges  of  the  original  members  of  the  Confederacy. 

"Resolved,  That  in  organizing  a territorial  government 
for  territory  belonging  to  the  United  States,  the  principles 
of  self-government,  upon  which  our  federative  system 
1 rests,  will  be  best  promoted,  the  true  spirit  and  meaning 
of  the  Constitution  be  observed,  and  the  Conl'ethsracy 
strengthened,  by  leaving  all  questions  concerning  tne  do- 
mestic policy  therein  to  the  Legislature  chosen  by  the 
people  thereof.” — Congressional  Globe,  vol.  IS,  p.  21. 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  It  will  be  observed  that  these 
resolutions  of  Mr.  Dickinson,  which  were  pre- 
; eented  to  the  Senate  on  the  14th  of  December, 
1847,  assert  distinctly  the  very  doctrine  which 
the  Senator  from  Mississippi  then  denounced  and 
I now  denounces,  and  which  I then  and  ever  since 
affirmed,  and  now  affirm.  I am  not  aware  that 
Mr.  Dickinson  and  General  Cass  has  ever  modified 
their  views,  much  less  disclaimed  the  doctrine  of 
| these  resolutions  and  of  the  Nicholson,  letter. 

. Yet  my  record  on  this  question  is  held  up  to  the 
Senate  and  to  the  country  as  if  I stood  alone  in 
the  Democratic  party — a heretic  then,  a heretic 
now — and  was  therefore  not  entitled  to  fellowship 
in  the  regular  Democratic  organisation.  I am 
aware,  sir,  that  some  of  the  people  and  some  of 
the  States  of  this  Union  now  hold  different  doc- 
trines from  those  they  formerly  held  upon  this 
subject  of  non-intervention — or  sqnttersovcreign- 
ty,  as  the  Senator  is  pleased  to  call  it,  for  he  uses 
i them  as  convertible  and  synonymous  terms — 
non-intervention  being  the  shibboleth  of  the 
’ party,  and  popular  sovereignty,  or  squatter  sov- 
; ereignty,  an  incident  or  result  only,  but  not  the 
test,  of  political  orthodoxy. 

j I will  call  attention  upon  this  point  to  a resolu- 
1 tion  adopted  by  the  Legislature  of  Florida,  passed, 
in  the  Senate  of  that  State  on  the  28th  of  Decem- 
ber, 1847,  and  in  the  House  of  Representatives  on 
the  2!)th  of  December,  1841,  and  approved  by  the 
Governor  on  the  30th  of  December  of  the  same 
year,  I find  these  resolutions  in  the  code  of  laws  .. 
I of  Florida  published  by  authority  of  the  Learisia-  - 
ture  of  that  State.  I am  aware  that  Florida  stsl  - - 
j sequently  passed  resolutions  asserting  doctrzmca 
inconsistent  with  these ; but  I cite  these  res  »1  .i-1', 
j tions  as  evidence  that  the  doctrine  of  non-intcrr; 
vention,  for  which  I am  now  arraigned,  was  r.:t 
, deemed  to  be  a political  heresy  at  that  day..  It 
' may  not  be  improper  here  to  remark  that,  during 
. this  session  of  Congress,  I received  a letter  ar'onu 
l a State  Senator  in  Florida  inclosing  resolutions 
which  he  had  introduced  for  the  repeal  of  those 
resolutions,  and  denouncing  the  resolutions,  which 
I will  read,  ns  being  unsound,  revolutionary;  un-. 

J constitutional,  dangerous  to  the  rights  of  the 
South,  and  denouncing  me  by  Aime  as  the  great 
. author  of  all  this  mischief  that  was  to  strike  cbwn 
I southern  rights.  I will  ask  my  friend  from  Ohio 
1 to  read  the  second  and  third  resolutions,  which 
bear  particularly  on  this  point — for  the  first  only 
i relates  to  the  Wilmot  proviso — in  order  to  show 
what  the  Legislature  of  Florida  thought  and'  said 
in  1847  upon  this  subject. 

Mr.  PUGH  read,  as  follows: 

‘•Src.o.  Re  it  further  resolved.  That,  in  the  opinion  of 
this  General  Assembly,  a just  and  correct  interpretation  of 
' the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  rests  in  Ihe  territo- 
rial, as  well  as  the  State  Legislature's  exclusive  jurisdic- 
tion over  the  persons  of  individuals  within  their  respective 
limits;  and  that  it  would  be  arbitrary,  unjust,  and  a usur- 


4 


pation  of  power  on  the  part  of  Congress,  to  annex  condi- 
tions to  the  admission  of  a State  into  the  Union,  or  the 
annexing  a Territory  thereto,  involving  the  right  of  juris- 
diction in  Congress  over  this  subject,  which  exclusively 
belongs  to  the  Territory  itself  before  its  admission  into  the 
Union,  and  to  the  State  afterwards. 

“ Sec.  8.  Be  it  farther  revolved,  That  it  would  be  an  ar* 
bitrary  Usurpation  of  power  on  the  part  of  Congress  to 
exclude  slavery  from  any  such  territory  as  may  hereafter 
be  acquired  by  the  United  States,  either  by  way  of  indem- 
nity, by  conquest,  or  by  purchase;  that  the  people  of  the 
'Territory  alone  have  the  right  to  determine  upon  this  sub- 
ject; and  it  is  for  them,  while  thev  remain  a Territory,  and 
for  the  State,  when  they  shall  ask  to  be  admitted  asa'State, 
to  say  whether  the  institution  of  slavery  shall  exist  within 
the  limits  of  such  Territorv  or  State;  they  having,  by  a 
just  interpretation  of  the  Con  titution.  exclusive  jurisdic- 
tion over  the  subject-matter  within  their  limits." — Laws  of 
the  State  of  Florida , 1S45  to  1S49,  page  S3. 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  It  will  be  observed  that  in 
these  resolutions  the  State  of  Florida  declared 
that,  by  a correct  construction  of  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States,  a Territorial  Legisla- 
ture, while  in  a territorial  condition,  had  the  ex- 
clusive right  to  determine  for  itself  whether 
slavery  should  or  should  not  exist  within  the 
limits  of  such  Territory.  As  T have  already  re- 
marked, Florida  subsequently  changed  her  policy 
on  that  subject.  If,  however,  she  solemnly  pro- 
claimed that  doctrine  to  the  world,  in  the  name 
of  a sovereign  State  of  this  Union,  telling  the 
northern  Democracy  on  what  terms  and  condi- 
tions Florida  would  hold  fellowship  with  them, 
and  we  accepted  the  doctrine,  I should  think  she 
<*>uld  forgive  us  for  remaining  faithful  to  her 
-creed,  if  we  can  forgive  her  for  abandoning  it. 
I arraign  no  man  ; I much  le^s  arraign  a sover- 
eign State.  She  had  the  right,  to  proclaim  her 
•opinions;  and  if  subsequently  she  came  to  the 
conclusion  that  they  were  wrong,  she  ought  to 
change  them  ; but  having  proclaimed  them,  and 
then  changed  them,  it  seems  to  me  a little  indul- 
gence, even  “quarter,”  should  be  granted  by 
Florida  to  those  who  stand  by  Florida’s  original 
position. 

Florida  was  not  the  only  southern  State  whose 
Democracy  held  these  doctrines  in  1847,  prior  to 
the  nomination  of  General  Cass  for  the  Presi- 
dency. I find  here  some  resolutions  adopted  by 
the  Democratic  State  convention  of  Georgia,  held 
at  Hilledgevilie,  in  December,  1847.  I have  not, 
the  entire  proceedings.  I have  seen  these  resolu- 
tions in  several  Georgia  papers  recently,  with  the 
statement  of  the  gentleman  who  either  reported 
them  or  concurred  in  their  passage,  and  with  a 
further  statement  that  these  resolutions  were 
copied  and  adopted  hy  several  State  conventions 
in  other  southern  States  at  that  period.  On  that 
newspaper  authority,  and  that  alone,  T read  these 
resolutions,  so  far  as  I find  them  published  in  the 
papers,  bearing  on  this  question.  It  is  proper  to 
state  that  in  the  proceedings  of  the  convention  it 
appears  that  certain  gentlemen,  eminent  for  abil- 
ity, eminent  for  their  devotion  to  southern  rights, 
eminent  for  their  position  in  the  Democratic  par- 
ty, were  present,  and  concurred  in  these  proceed- 
ings. Among  these  I find  F.  H.  Cone,  R.  A.  L. 
Atkinson,  Jesse  Carter,  W.  S.  Johnson,  Robert 
Griffin,  Thomas  Hilliard,  W.  W.  Wiggins,  E.  W. 
Chastain,  W.  J.  Lawton,  S.  W.  Colbert,  and  D. 
Phillips.  I find,  also,  Hon.  Mr.  Jackson,  member 
of  Congress,  and  Hon.  Lucius  Q.  C.  Lamar,  now 


a Representative  in  Congress  from  Mississippi, 
but  then  a citizen  of  Newton  county,  Georgia. 
I will  ask  my  friend  from  Ohio  to  read  these 
Georgia  resolutions,  which  were  good  Democra- 
cy at  that  day,  and  were  copied  and  adopted  by 
several  other  southern  States  in  their  Democratic 
State  conventions. 

Mr.  PUGH  read,  as  follows: 

“ Resolved.  That  Congress  possesses  no  power  under 
the  Constitution  to  legislate  in  any  way  or  manner  in  rela- 
tion to  the  institutioYof  slavery.  It  is  the  constitutional 
right  of  every  citizen  to  remove  and  settle  with  his  proper- 
ty in  any  of  the  Territories  of  the  United  States. 

“ Resolved . That  the  people  of  the  South  do  not  ask  of 
Congress  to  establish  the  institution  of  slavery  in  any  of 
the  Territories  that  may  be  acquired'  by  the  United  States ; 
they  simply  require  that  the  inhabitants  of  each  Terri- 
tory shall  be.  left  free  to  determine  .for  themselves  whether 
the  institution  of  slavery  shall  or  shall  not  form  a part 
of  their  social  system.” 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  There  again,  sir,  we  find  the 
doctrine  of  non-intervention  distinctly  defined 
by  the  Democratic  State  convention  of  Georgia- 
Two  distint  propositions  are  affirmed;  one  is,, 
that  Congress  has  no  constitutional  power  to 
legislate  upon  the  subject  of  slavery  in  the  Ter- 
ritories. That.,  I should  think,  was  pretty  distinct 
non-intervention.  You  cannot  legislate  against 
it;  you  cannot  legislate  for  it;  you  cannot  touch 
the  subject  at  all  in  the  Territories.  Now,  sir,  it 
may  be,  and  unquestionably  is,  true  that  some  of 
the  eminent  men  who  participated  in  that  State- 
convention  of  Georgia  have  since  changed  their 
opinions  upon  this  subject,  and  now  believe  just 
as  conscientiously  that  it  is  both  within  the  pow- 
er and  the  dutj^  of  Congress  to  legislate  for  the 
protection  of  slavery  in  the  Territories,  as  they 
then  believed  it  was  unconstitutional  for  Con- 
gress to  do  so.  All  I have  to  say  of  those  emi- 
nent gentlemen,  for  whose  talents  I have  great 
respect,  is,  that  if  I can  forgive  them  for  having 
abandoned  the  very  doctrine  that  they  invited  us 
of  the  North  to  rally  in  support  of,  I think  they 
may-  pardon  us  for  remaining  faithful  to  that  doc- 
trine which  they  and  we  agreed  to  stand  by. 

In  pursuing  this  subject,  I am  afraid  that  I 
shall  become  tedious  to  the  Senate;  but  still  I 
feel  it  my  duty  to  present  full  evidence  upon  this 
point,  showing  that  the  Democratic  party,  from 
1848  to  this  day,  have  stood  pledged,  as  a cardi- 
nal article  in  their  creed,  to  the  doctrine  of  non- 
intervention ; and  for  that  purpose  I shall  be 
compelled  to  have  various-  extracts,  and  some 
long  ones,  read,  and  perhaps  to  be  somewhat  te- 
dious in  the  exposition  of  the  subject. 

I have  already  shown  on  high  authority — 
southern  authority — that,  when  the  Baltimore 
convention  assembled  in  May,  1S4S,  to  nominate 
a Democratic  candidate  for  "the  Presidency,  and 
to  lay  down  a platform  for  the  party,  the  atten- 
tion of  the  country,  the  especial  attention  of  the 
Democratic  party  of  the  southern  States  as  welt 
as  of  the  northern  States,  had  been  particularly 
called  to  this  doctrine  of  non-intervention  hy 
Congress  with  slavery  in  the  Territories;  and 
hence  the  nomination  of  General  Cass,  with  his 
opinions  as  expressed  in  the  Nicholson  letter,  was 
not  the  result  of  accident  or  inadvertence';  but 
he  was  chosen  because  his  sentiments  were  the 
sentiments  of  the  vast  majority  of  the  Democratic 


5 


party,  North  and  South,  I have  looked  into  the 
proceedings  of  the  convention  at  Baltimore  in 
184  S,  when  General  Cass  was  nominated,  and 
made  an  abstract  of  the  votes.  I find  that,  in 
the  slaveholding  States,  General  Cass  received, 
on  the  first  ballot  for  the  nomination,  66  votes ; 
Mr.  Buchanan,  19  votes;  Mr.  Woodbury,  15; 
Mr.  Calhoun.  9 ; General  Worth,  6 ; Mr.  Dallas, 
S.  The  following  are  the  southern  States  that 
voted  for  General  Cass  on  the  first  ballot:  Dela- 
ware, 3 votes;  Maryland,  6 votes;  Virginia,  17 
votes;  Mississippi,  6 votes;  Louisiana,  6 votes; 
Texas,  4 votes;  Arkansas,  3 votes;  Tennessee,  7 
votes;  Kentucky,  7 votes;  Missouri,  7 votes. 
These  States  did  not  then  think  that  non-inter- 
vention—or  squatter  sovereignty,  as  it  is  now 
called  in  derision — was  such  a fatal  heresy  as  to 
furnish  sufficient  cause  for  disrupting  the  Demo- 
cratic party,  much  less  for  dissolving  the  Ameri- 
can Union.  They  voted  for  General  Cass  with  a 
knowledge  of  his  opinions  on  this  question;  and 
he  was  their  first  choice.  Old  Virginia  did  not 
take  him  then  as  a choice  of  evils.  She  had  the 
opportunity  of  voting  for  a southern  man,  illus- 
trious for  his  talents,  public  services,  and  devo- 
tion to  southern  rights.  She  had  the  opportnuity 
of  voting  at  that  time  for  Mr.  Calhoun,  of  South 
Carolina,  on  bis  platform.  Old  Virginia  then  be- 
lieved that  intervention  on  the  subject  of  slavery 
meant  disunion.  Hence  she  rejected  intervention, 
and  gave  her  vote  first,  last,  and  all  the  time,  for 
General  Cass,  the  expounder,  the  embodiment  of 
non-intervention.  The  same  remark  is  true  of 
Mississippi,  represented  now  so  ably  by  the  Sen- 
ator who  arraigned  me  the  other  day.  He  tells 
us  that  he  always  fought  this  doctrine  of  non- 
intervention. So  he  has;  but  at  that  time  he  had 
not  the  same  power  in  the  State  of  Mississippi; 
he  had  not  made  the  same  impress  on  that  peo- 
ple, by  his  eminent  talents  and  great  public  ser- 
vices, as  he  has  since ; and  hence  he  was  then 
unable  to  seduce  Mississippi  away  from  the  doc- 
trine of  non-intervention.  Louisiana,  too,  then 
true  to  the  Democratic  creed ; true  to  the  doc- 
trine of  non-intervention  ; true  to  the  mainte-  : 
nance  of  the  Union;  hostile  to  intervention — 
because  intervention  led  directly  to  disunion — 
rallied  around  General  Cass  as  the  standard- 
bearer  in  1S48,  first,  last,  and  all  the  time.  So 
of  the  other  States  which  I have  named. 

On  the  fburth  ballot,  (which  was  the  last  one, 
and  the  one  on  which  General  Cass  was  nomina- 
ted by  a two-thirds  vote,)  in  the  slaveholding 
States,  General  Cass  received  94  votes;  Mr.  Bu- 
chanan, 7 votes;  Mr.  Woodbury,  13  votes;  Gen- 
eral Worth,  1 ; General  Butler,  3.  The  southern 
States  voting  for  General  Cass  were  : Delaware, 
3;  Maryland,  6;  Virginia,  17;  North  Carolina, 
11;  South  Carolina,  9;  Georgia,  10;  Mississippi, 
6;  Louisiana,  6;  Texas,  4;  Arkansas,  3;  Tennes- 
see, 7 ; Kentucky,  7 ; Missouri,  7.  Even  South 
Carolina,  when  she  found  that  her  own  favorite 
had  no  chance  of  a nomination — so  soon  as  she 
found  that  General  Cass  was  the  choice  of  a ma- 
jority of  the  party — wheeled  into  line,  surren- 
dered her  preference,  and  declared  the  champion 
of  non-intervention  as  her  next  choice  for  the 
Presidency.  Then  she  did  not  think  this  doctrine 


was  sufficient  cause  either  to  dissolve  the  Union 
or  to  disrupt  the  Democratic  party. 

On  the  first  ballot  the  northern  States  gave 
Cass  59;  Woodbury,  39;  Buchanan,  32;  slewing 
that  General  Cass  received  only  59  out*f  130 
northern  votes  cast,  New  York  not  voting  in 
consequence  of  her  double  delegation  ; and  in  all 
the  slaveholding  States  he  received,  on  the  first 
ballot,  66  out  of  118  votes,  being  a majority  of 
the  whole  number..  These  facts  show  that  Gen- 
eral Cass  was  not  the  choice  of  a majority  of  the 
northern  Democracy  at  that  time,  but  was  the 
choice  of  a majority  of  the  southern  Democracy. 

Now,  I shall  proceed  to  show  that  these  votes 
were  cast  with  distinct  reference  to  the  doctrine 
of  non-intervention  as  now  supported  by  myself 
and  affirmed  by  the  Democratic  party  at  Charles- 
ton, and  as  resisted  by  the  Senator  from  Missis- 
sippi and  those  who  seceded  from  the  Charleston 
convention.  General  Cass,  on  the  fourth  ballot, 
received  the  nomination.  The  whole  number  of 
votes  cast  was  257 ; necessary  to  a choice,  170. 
Thereupon  the  record  says: 

“Lewis  Cass,  of  Michigan,  having  received  two  thirds 
of  the  whole  number  of  votes  east, 

“The  chairman  declared  him  duly  nominated  by  the  con- 
vention as  the  candidate  for  President. 

“The  announcement  of  this  result  by  the  Chair  was  Al- 
lowed by  enthusiastic  and  long-continued  applause,  the 
members  of  the  various  delegations  almost  universally 
springing  to  their  feet,  and  uniting  in  one  spirit-stiring 
shoufof  approbation. 

“ Mr.  Toucey,  of  Connecticut,  rose  simultaneously  with 
] Mr.  Bryce,  of  Louisiana,  to  move  that  those  States  whose 
delegates  had  not  voted  for  General  Cass,  might  have  an 
opportunity  of  changing  their  vote,  so  that  the  nomination 
might  be  unanimous.  "This  motion  was  agreed  to,  and 
the  States  whose  votes  had  not  been  cast  wholly  for  Mr. 
Cass,  being  called  ” — 

the  other  States  went  on  to  change  their  votes 
and  to  make  the  nomination  unanimous.  They 
were  proceeding  to  declare  General  Cass  nomi- 
nated on  the  votes  of  two-thirds  of  the  members 
present,  Dot  two-thirds  of  the  whole  number  of 
votes  in  the  electoral  college.  Here  you  find  an 
express  decision  that  two-thirds  of  those  present 
and  voting,  and  not  two-thirds  of  the  whole  elec- 
toral college  was  the  rule ; New  York  not  voting, 
because  she  had  a double  delegation,  and  neither 
would  consent  that  the  other  should  sit  with 


them.  Then  speeches  were  made  in  favor  of 
making  the  nomination  unamimous  : 

“ Mr.  MeCandless  of  the  Pennsylvania  delegation,  Mr. 
Humphreys  of  Maryland,  Mr.  Wells  of  New  Hampshire, 
Mr.  Turney  of  Tennessee,  Mr.  Toucey  of  Connecticut,  Mr. 
Carey  of  Maine,  Messrs  Kantoul  and  Hallett  of  Massachu- 
setts, Mr.  Hibbard  of  New  Hampshire,  Mr.  Pearce  of 
Rhode  Island,  and  Mr.  R P.  Thompson  of  New  Jersey, 
in  brief  and  eloquent  speeches,  announced  the  unanimous 
vote  of  their  delegation  for  the  nominee  of  the  convention, 
and  pledging  him  their  cordial  and  united  support.” 

These  gentlemen  had  thus  far  opposed  General 
Cass,  because  they  preferred  other  men : but  they 
felt  it  their  duty  to  withdraw  their  opposition,  and 
support  him  as  the  standard-bearer  of  the  party. 

Th  ereupon, 


“ Mr.  Yancey,  of  Alabama,  stated  that  he  desired  to  have 
the  platform — on  which  they  intended  to  place  the  candi- 
date-erected before  he  would  be  prepared  to  pledge  his 
support 

“ Mr.  Winston,  of  Alabama,  pledged  the  people  of  Ala- 
bama to  sustain  the  nominee. 

“ Messrs  King,  J.  E.  Morse,  Sydenham  Moore,  Scott, 
[ and  Bowden,  each  united  in  the  pledge  given  by  Mr. 
i Winston.” 


6 


Some  eminent  names  in  those  daj's  •are  here 
who  did  not  think  that  the  doctrine  of  non-inter- 
vention was  such  a fatal  heresy  as  to  form  a suf- 
ficient i^tification  for  disrupting  the  Democratic 
party,  Wen  at  the  hazzard  of  a dissolution  of  the 
Union.  Governor  Winston,  I believe,  is  well 
known  in  Alabama — an  eminent  citizen.  He 
pledged  Alabama  for  General  Cass  on  this  doc- 
trine of  non  intervention,  carrying  the  Nicholson 
letter  in  his  hand  as  the  comp.ass  by  which  his 
political  action  was  to  be  governed.  Sydenham 
Moore  is  not  a name  unknown  to  “fame”  — a 
most  worthy  man,  eminent  in  ability,  and  stand- 
ing well  in  Alabama,  and  now  represents  that 
State  with  ability  and  zeal  in  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives. He  did  not  regard  this  doctrine  of 
non-intervention  as  a fatal  blow  at  southern  rights, 
and  he  felt  authorized  to  pledge  Alabama  to  the 
support  of  General  Cass.  “Mr.  Avant,  of  Ten- 
nessee, and  Mr.  Magoffin,  of  Kentucy,  spoke  in 
favor  of  the  nominees,  pledging  the  support  of 
their  respective  States and  the  next  day  the 
platform  was  adopted,  in  which  the  doctrine  of 
non-intervention  was  affirmed  in  the  seventh  res- 
olution, which  is  so  familiar  that,  perhaps,  it  is 
unnecessary  to  read  it.  [“Let  us  hear  it.”]  Let 
it  be  read. 

Mr.  PUGH  read,  as  follows: 

“ T.  That  Congress  has  no  power  under  the  Constitution 
to  interfere  with  or  control  the  domestic  institutions  of  the 
several  States,  and  that  such  States  are  the  sole  and  proper 
judges  of  everything  appertaining  to  their  own  affairs, 
not  prohibited  by  the  Constitution  ; that  all  efforts  of  the 
Abolitionists  or  others,  made  to  induce  Congress  to  inter- 
fere with  questions  of  slavery,  or  to  take  incipient  steps  in 
relation  thereto,  are  calculated  to  lead  to  llie  most  alarm- 
ing and  dangerous  consequences ; and  that  all  such  efforts 
have  an  inevitable  tendency  to  diminish  the  happiness  of 
the  people,  and  endanger  the  stability  and  permanency  of 
the  Union,  and  ought  not  to  be  countenanced  by  any 
friend  of  our  political  institutions.” 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  In  1848,  the  Democratic  con- 
vention were  of  the  opinion  that,  to  countenance 
any  interference  with  slavery  by  Congress,  was 
dangerous  to  the  peace  and  harmony  of  the  coun- 
try, and  tended  to  a dissolution  of  the  Union ; that 
they  would  not  permit  this  interference  by  Abo- 
litionists or  others.  They  did  not  regard  the  in- 
terventionist then  any  better  than  the  Abolition- 
ist. Southern  interventionists  and  northern  in- 
terventionists, by  the  fair  intendment  of  that 
platform,  were  put  on  an  equality.  After  that 
platform  was  adopted,  Mr.  Yancey,  of  Alabama, 
felt  it  to  be  his  duty  to  record  his  solemn  protest 
against  this  dangerous, heresy  of  the  Territorial 
Legislatures  deciding  on  the  slavery  question. 
He  came  into  the  convention  the  next  day,  May 
26,  with  an  elaborate  report  against  this  dogma, 
this  heresy  promulgated  by  General  Cass  in  his 
Nicholson  letter,  signed  by  William  L.  Lancey  of 
Alabama,  John  0.  McGehee  of  Florida,  and  J.  M. 
Commander  of  South  Carolina,  accompanied  with 
a resolution.  I shall  ask  the  Senate  to  listen 
patiently  to  the  entire  report  of  Mr.  Yancey  upon 
that  occasion,  for  it  embraces  every  thought, 
every  idea,  every  principle,  every  pretext  as- 
signed at  Charleston  for  withdrawing  from  the 
recent  convention.  In  order  that  I may  do  Mr. 
Yancey  full  justice,  I shall  ask  the  Senate  to  lis- 
ten to  the  entire  report,  the  resolution,  and  the 


vote  thereon.  It  is  only  one  column  of  Niles’s 
Register.  I may  here  be  permitted  to  remark, 
that,  by  anything  I have  said,  or  may  say  of  him 
here,  I mean  no  personal  disrespect  to  Mr.  Yan- 
cey. We  are  old  personal  friends.  We  met  as 
members  of  Congress  seventeen  years  ago.  Our 
social  relations  have  always  been  uninterrupted. 

I have  as  much  admiration  as  any  may  living  for 
his  brilliant,  his  surpassing  ability,  for  his  great 
social  qualities,  and  for  the  boldness  and  the 
nerve  with  which  he  avows  his  principles  and 
follows  them  to  their  logical  consequences;  al- 
though I shrink  with  horror  from  the  conse- 
quences to  which  his  principles  would  lead  this 
Republic.  I ask  my  friend  from  Ohio  to  read 
that  entire  report. 

Mr.  PUGH  read,  as  follows  : 

“Mr.  Yancey  then  rose  and  said  that  be  approved  most 
cordially  of  the  resolutions,  with  a single  exception.  He 
then  begged  to  present  the  report  of  the  minority  of  the 
committee,  which  is  as  follows  : 

“ The  undersigned,  a minority  of  the  committee  on  reso- 
lutions, ask  leave  respectfully  to  submit  a minority  report 
to  this  convention. 

“ Believing  that  the  success  of  the  Democratic  party  will 
depend  solely  upon  the  truth  or  untruth  of  the  principles 
, avowed  by  this  convention,  and  by  the  nominee  thereof, 
the  undersigned  cannot  give  their  assent  to  the  report  of 
the  majority.  The  nominee  of  this  convention  is  under- 
stood to  entertain  the  opinion  that  Congress  has  no  right 
to  interfere  with  the  question  of  slavery  in  the  States  or 
Territories,  but  that  the  people  inhabiting  a Territory  have 
the  exclusive  right  to  exclude  it  therefrom.  The  majority 
of  your  committee  have  only  adopted  this  principle  as  far 
as  applicable  to  the  States,  and  have  thus  refused,  in  the 
avowal  of  the  cardinal  principles  of  the  Democracy,  to 
express  any  opinion  upon  what  is  really  the  most  exciting 
and  important  political  topic  now  before  the  country,  leav- 
ing the  people  to  find  an  exposition  ot  the  views  of  the 
great  Democratic  party  of  the  Union,  and  of  the  probable 
course  of  its  Representatives  in  Congress  in  the  avowed 
opinions  of  their  nominee  for  the  office  of  President. 

"This  course  we  conceive  to  be  fundamentally  wrong. 
It  has  ever  been  the  pride  of  the  Democracy  that  it  has 
dealt  frankly  and  honestly  with  the  people.  It  has  scorned 
to  conceal  its  political  opinions.  It  has  made  it  a point  of 
opposition  to  the  Whigparty,  that  it  frequently  goes  before 
the  people  with  a mask  upon  its  brow,  and  has  appealed 
to  the  masses  to  rebuke  that  party  for  a course  so  offensive 
to  truth,  and  so  unfair  to  them.  Our  conntry’s  institutions 
must  find  their  surest  support  in  an  intelligent  public  opin- 
ion. That  public  opinion  cannot  be  intelligently  formed 
as  to  our  views  upon  those  institutions  if  we  refuse  to  avow 
them,  and  dare  not  advocate  them. 

" It  is  useless  to  deny  that  this  question  does  not  press 
home  upon  us  for  our  decision.  Ten  of  the  sovereign  non- 
slaveholding  States  have  already  expressed  decided  opin- 
ions upon  it.  This  has  been  met  by  counteracting  opinions 
in  the  South,  first  distinctly  avowed  by  the  Stale  of  Vir- 
ginia. and  since  followed  up  by  nearly  every  State  in  that 
section  of  Ihe  Union. 

“ It  is  idle  to  call  the  question  an  abstract  one.  If  ab- 
stract in  any  sense,  it  is  only  so  to  the  section  in  which 
have  originated  the  avowals  of  aggression  upon  the  rights 
of  a large  portion  of  the  Union,  to  wit : the  noD-sIavehohl- 
ing  States— they  own  not  a dollar  of  property'to  be  affect- 
ed by  the  ascendency  of  the  principle  at  issue.  They  have 
not  a single  political  right  to  be  curtailed.  With  them,  op- 
position to  the  South  on  I his  point  is  purely  a question  of 
moral  and  political  ethics.  Far  different  is  it  with  the 
South.  They  own  the  property  which  success  of  this  prin- 
ciple will  prevent  them  from  carrying  with  them  to  the 
Territories.  They  have  a common  right  in  the  Territories, 
from  which  they  are  to  be  excluded,  unless  they  choose  to 
go  there  without  this  property,  't  hey  have  heretofore 
been  considered  as  political  equals  in  tiie  Union,  with  the 
same  power  of  expansion  and  of  progress,  which  has  here- 
tofore distinguished  ali  classes  in  the  Union,  and  which 
has  given  to  us  all  the  distinctive  appellation  of  the  ‘ party 
of  progress.’  They  own,  in  common  with  their  brethren 
I of  the  North,  these  Territories,  which  are  to  be  held  by 
| the  Federal  Government,  as  a trustee,  for  common  uses 
| and  common  purposes. 


7 


If,  therefore,  yon  refnse  to  meet  the  issue  made  upon 
the  slaveholding  by  part  of  the  non-slaveholding  States, 
and  permit  the  heretofore  expressed  opinions  of  your 
nominee  to  stand  impliedly  as  the  opinions  of  this  conven- 
tion, yon  pronounce,  in  substance,  against  the  political 
equality  of  the  people:  against  the  community  of  interest 
in  the  Territories,  which  it  is  contended  exists  in  the  peo- 
ple: against  the  right  of  one-half  of  the  people  of  the 
Union  to  extend  those  institutions  which  the  fathers  of  the 
Constitution  recognized  as  fundamental  in  the  framing  of 
the  articles  of  union,  and  upon  which  rests  the  great  and 
leading  principles  upon  which  taxation  and  political 
power  are  based. 

In  order  to  obviate  such  a construction — in  order  to  give 
assurance  to  the  public  mind  of  our  entire  country  that 
the  Democracy  of  the  Union  will  preserve  the  compro- 
mises of  the  Constitution,  not  only  in  the  States,  but  in 
the  Territories;  that  it  recognizes  entire  political  equality 
to  exist  among  the  people,  and  their  right  to  people,  un- 
molested in  their  rights  of  property,  the  vast  Territories 
whi  h the  Union  holds  out  as  a trust,  until  sufficiently 
populated  to  be  erected  into  States — the  undersigned  have 
agreed  to  present  to  this  body,  for  its  adoption,  the  follow- 
ing resolution : 

W.  L.  YANCEY,  of  Alabama. 

JOHN  C.  McGEHEE,  of  Florida. 

J.  M.  COMMANDER,  of  South  Carolina. 

Resolved.  That  the  doctrine  of  non-interference  with 
the  rights  of  property  of  any  portion  of  the  people  of  this 
Confederation,  be  it  in  the  State  or  in  the  Territories,  by 
any  other  than  the  parties  interested  in  them,  is  the  true 
republican  doctrine  recognized  by  this  body. 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  It  will  be  observed  that,  in 
that  report,  Mr.  Yancey  embodied  the  whole  ar- 
gument in  favor  of  intervention  for  protection, 
or  for  any  other  purpose,  which  we  have  heard 
repeated  over  and  over  again  for  so  many  years. 
I doubt  whether  any  Senator  can  take  his  own 
speech  and  find  anv  one  idea  or  argument  in  favor 
of  that  doctrine  which  is  not  embodied  in  the  re- 
port of  Mr.  Yancy.  The  first  statement  there  is, 
that  it  is  understood  that  General  Cass,  the  nom- 
inee, holds  that  a Territorial  Legislature  may 
exclude  slavery  from  the  Territory.  It  was  not 
denied  that  General  Cass  held  that  doctrine.  It 
was  known  that  he  did  ; and  he  was  nominated 
because  he  did  hold  the  doctrine  that  the  people 
of  a Territory  might  either  introduce  or  exclude, 
protect  or  prohibit,  slavery  at  pleasure.  For  that 
reason,  Mr.  Yancey  and  histwo  colleagues  on  the 
committee  proceeded  to  put  their  protest  on  re- 
cord. The  argument  of  the  equality  of  the  States, 
of  which  we  have  heard  so  much,  was  urged.  The 
other  argument,  that  the  Territories  are  the  com- 
mon property,  and,  therefore,  should  be  open  to 
all  the  citizens,  independent  of  local  authority, 
was  used.  The  argument  that  it  is  not  creditable 
to  the  Democratic  party  to  go  before  the  country 
dodging  the  question  of  the  rights  of  the  South 
in  the  Territories,  was  brought  forward.  It  says 
that  the  convention,  in  the  platform,  had  refused 
to  express  an  opinion  on  the  question  whether  the 
Territorial  Legislature  could  prohibit  slavery  or 
not ; that  it  was  not  creditable  to  them  to  avoid 
expressing  an  opinion  on  the  point;  that  it  con- 
victed the  Democratic  party  of  double-dealing  in 
the  manner  that  they  had  charged  upon  the 
Whigs,  and  that  what  rendered  it  necessary  to 
have  an  expression  of  opinion  on  that  point  was, 
that  the  candidate  held  that  a Territorial  Legis- 
lature could  exclude  slavery.  Then  he  concludes 
with  a resolution,  which  is  very  adroitly  written, 
I know,  but,  taken  in  connection  with  the  report, 
has  a clear  signification,  in  harmony  with  the 
report: 


“That  the  doctrine  of  non-interference  with  the  rights 
of  properly  of  any  portion  of  the  people  of  this  Confeder- 
ation, be  it  in  the  States  or  in  the  Territories,  by  any  other 
than  the  parties  interested  in  them,  is  the  true  republican 
doctrine  recognized  by  this  body.” 

That  is,  nobody  but  theowner  of  theslavemust 
interfere  with  his  right  to  hold  him.  Neither  Con- 
gress nor  a Territorial  Legislature  must^iterfere 
with  tit e rights  of  the  slaveholder  in  the  Terri- 
tories to  manage  and  control  his  slaves.  That  was 
the  proposition  Mr.  Yancey  presented.  It  was 
submitted  to  the  convention — fairly  and  boldly 
met;  and  I will  read  the  vote  in  the  convention, 
by  States,  rejecting  Mr.  Yancey’s  report  and  reso- 
lution. Mr.  Yancey  enforced  his  report  with  a 
speech,  which  is  here  reported,  but  which  is  too 
long  to  quote,  and  then  concluded: 

“ I now  close  by  offering  the  resolution  as  an  amend- 
ment to  the  report  of  the  committee. 

“ The  question  was  taken  on  Mr.  Yancey’s  resolution  ; 
and  it  was.  by  States,  rejected — 36  to  216;  as  follows: 

] “Yeas — Maryland.  1;  South  Carolina.  9;  George,  9; 

I Florida,  3 : Alabama,  9 ; Arkansas,  3 ; Tennessee,  1 ; Ken- 
tucky, 1 — 36. 

“Nays — Maine,  9;  New  Hampshire,  6;  Massachusetts, 
12;  Vermont.  6:  Rhode  Island,  4;  Connecticut.  6 ; New 
Jersey,  7 ; New  York. — ; Pennsylvania,  26 ; Delaware,  8; 
Maryland,  6;  Virginia,  17;  North  Carolina.il:  Missis- 
sippi, 6;  Louisiana,  6;  Texas,  4;  Tennessee,  12;  Ken- 
tucky, 11  ; Ohio,  23;  Indiana,  12;  Illinois,  9 ; Michigan, 
5;  Iowa,  4;  Missouri,  7;  “Wisconsin,  4—216. 

Here  we  find  Virginia,  North  Carolina,  Ken- 
tucky, Tennessee.  Missouri  voting  against  the 
incorporation  of  the  doctrine  of  intervention  for 
the  protection  of  slavery  into  the  platform.  They 
voted  against  the  doctrine  of  Mr.  Yancey’s  re- 
port and  resolution.  Those  States  then  had  the 
opportunity  of  affirming  this  doctrine,  if  they 
thought  it  ought  to  be  any  portion  of  the  Demo- 
cratic creed.  Not  only  the  States  I have  named — 
the  border  States — voted  that  way,  but  you  will 
find  voting  against  this  doctrine  Mississippi, 
Louisiana,  Texas — the  very  States  that  have  now 
seceded  from  the  Charleston  convention,  for  the 
reason  that  this  same  doctrine  was  not  incorpor- 
ated into  the  platform.  In  184S,  they  voted 
against  putting  it  into  the  platform ; in  1860  their 
delegates  holt  the  convention  because  it  was  not 
put  into  the  platform.  The  Senate  and  the  coun- 
try will  judge  who  has  changed  on  this  question. 
North  Carolina,  through  Mr.  Strange,  stated  her 
reason  for  voting  against  this  doctrine ; which  was 
that  the  resolutions  of  the  platform,  as  it  stood, 
covered  the  entire  doctrine  of  non  intervention 
by  Congress  in  States  and  Territories.  That  is 
what  he  wanted;  that  Congress  should  not  in- 
tervene, leaving  it  for  the  Territories  to  do  as 
they  pleased,  so  that  they  did  not  violate  the 
Constitution;  and  the  judiciary  to  correct  their 
errors  if  they  did  violate  the  Constitution.  Mr. 
McAllister,  of  Georgia,  explained  that  George 
voted  for  the  resolution  because  they  did  not 
think  it  went  so  far  as  was  claimed  by  Mr.  Yan- 
cey in  his  speech  ; in  effect,  disavowing  the  doc- 
trine of  intervention,  which  Mr.  Yancey  intend- 
ed to  affirm. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  I think  I have  shown 
conclusively  that  in  1S48  the  Democratic  ereed 
was  non-iDtervention  by  Congress  with  slavery 
in  the  Territories,  either  for  or  against  it;  that 
Congress  should  not  interfere  either  to  establish 
or  abolish  it,  or  protect  or  maintain  it — unquali- 


8 


fled  non-intervention.  The  Democratic  party 
was  committed  to  the  doctrine.  It  is  true  there 
were  individual  exceptions,  men  who  did  not 
believe  in  this  doctrine  of  non-intervention,  and 
the  Senator  from  Mississippi  was  one  of  them. 
He  supported  General  Cass  under  protest,  making 
speejj^es  for  him,  and  protesting  against  his 
Nicholson  letter  and  the  doctrines  contained  in 
it.  The  Senator  from  Mississippi  has  a clean 
record,  but  a record  outside  of  the  Democratic 
party — a record  at  war  with  the  Democratic 
platform — rebelling  against  its  principles  and 
acquiescing  in  its  nomination.  The  Senator  then, 
as  now,  granted  no  quarter  to  squatter  sover- 
eignty, but  he  made  speeches  for  the  squatter 
sovereignty  chief. 

I pass  now,  sir,  to  1850,  in  order  to  show  clearly 
by  the  record,  as  was  stated  by  the  Senator  from 
Mississippi,  that  the  6ame  doctrine  of  non-inter- 
vention was  incorporated  into  the  compromise 
measures  of  1850,  against  his  will,  and  on  my 
motion.  We  differed  then,  as  we  differ  now;  he 
against  those  measures,  I for  them.  I deem  it 
my  duty,  even  at  the  risk  of  being  a little  tedi- 
ous, to  show  that  this  doctrine  was  then  tho- 
roughly discussed,  and  that,  after  a deliberate 
debate,  which  ran  over  two  months,  it  was  af- 
firmed by  a vote  of  nearly  two  to  one  in  the 
Senate,  and  incorporated  into  the  compromise 
measures  of  1850.  On  the  25th  of  March, %1 850, 
the  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Territories  of 
this  body  (Mr.  Douglas)  reported  two  bills — one 
for  the  admission  of  California  as  a State  ; the 
other,  to  organize  the  Territories  of  Utah  and 
New  Mexico,  and  adjust  the  .disputed  boundary 
with  Texas.  On  the  19th  of  April,  the  Senate 
appointed  the  celebrated  committee  of  thirteen, 
with  Mr.  Clay  at  its  head,  to  consider  the  whole 
question.  On  the  8th  of  May,  Mr.  Clay,  as 
chairman  of  the  committee  of  thirteen,  reported 
the  celebrated  omnibus  bill  to  the  Senate,  which, 
as  your  records  will  show,  consisted  of  the  two 
printed  bills  previously  reported  by  myself  from 
the  Territorial  Committee,  with  a waferbetween 
them,  and  certain  amendments  interlined  in  writ- 
ing. One  of  the  amendments,  which  was  made 
in  the  committee  of  thirteen,  I will  point  out, 
for  it  involves  this  distinct  question  now  in  dis- 
pute. The  bill,  as  it  was  originally  reported  by 
myself,  defined  the  powers  of  the  Territorial 
Legislature  in  these  words: 

“ And  be  it  further  enacted.  That  the  legislative  power 
of  the  Territories  'shall  extend  to  all  rightful  subjects  of 
legislation  consistent  with  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  and  the  provisions  of  this  act;  but  uo  law  shall  be 
passed  interfering  with  the  primary  disposition  of  the 
soil,”  &c. 

As  reported  from  theTerritorial  Committee,  the 
bill  was  silent  on  the  subject  of  slavery;  the  bill 
ignored  the  slavery  question,  and  conferred  on  the 
Territorial  Legislature  power  over  all  righ  tful  sub- 
jects of  legislation  consistent  with  the  Constitu- 
tion, without  excepting  slavery.  The  committee 
of  thirteen  reported  this  amendment  to  it,  after 
the  clause ; “but  no  law  shall  be  passed  interfer- 
ing with  the  primary  disposition  of  the  soil,”  by 
adding  “nor  in  respect  to  African  slavery;”  so 
that  the  committee  of  thirteen  reported  against 
the  Territorial  Legislature  passing  any  law  in  re 


speet  to  African  slavery.  Mr.  Clay  stated  that 
that  limitation  on  the  Territorial  Legislature  had 
been  incorporated  into  the  bill  against  his  will 
and  his  judgment.  General  Cass,  in  debate,  made 
the  same  statement  that  it  had  been  incorporated 
against  his  judgment.  They  were  in  favor  of 
allowing  the  Territorial  Legislature  to  act  on  all 
rightful  subjects  of  legislation  consistent  with  the  .- 
Constitution,  without  excepting  African  slavery; 
but  a majority  of  the  committee  overruled  them. 
When  this  report  came  in,  the  Senator  from  Mis- 
sissippi objected  to  the  bill,  and  proposed  an 
amendment  to  the  very  section  to  which  I refer, 
which  I will  ask  my  friend  to  read,  with  the  ex- 
planatory remarks  of  the  Senator  in  offering  it. 

Mr.  PUGH.  When  the  bill  came  up  for  action 
on  the  1 5th  of  May,  Mr.  Davis,  of  Mississippi,  said: 

“ I offer  the  following  amendment : to  strike  out  in  the 
sixth  line  of  the  tenth  section  the  words  ‘ in  respect  to  A ./- 
rican  slavery,'  and  insert  the  words  ‘ with  those  l ights  of 
property  growing  out  of  the  institution  of  African  sla- 
very as  it  exists  in  any  of  the  States  of  the  Union.'  The 
object  of  the  amendment  is  to  prevent  the  Territorial  Le- 
gislature from  legislating  against  the  rights  of  property 
growing  out  of  the  institution  of  slavery.”  * * * “It 
will  leave  to  the  Territorial  Legislatures  those  rights  and 
powers  which  are  essentially  necessary,  not  only  to  the 
preservation  of  property,  but  to  the  peace  of  the  Territory. 

It  will  leave  the  right  to  make  such  police  regulations  as 
are  necessary  to  prevent  disorders,  and  which  will  be  ab- 
solutely necessary  with  such  property  as  that  to  secure  its 
beneficial  use  to  its  owner.  With  this  brief  explanation  I 
submit  the  amendment.” 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  the 
Senator  from  Mississippi  objected  to  the  bill,  be- 
cause it  did  not  contain  a prohibition  on  the  Le- 
gislature of  the  Territory  against  legislating  in  a 
manner  hostile  to  slavery.  He  wished  the  Ter- 
ritorial Legislature  to  have  the  power  to  protect, 
but  not  the  power  to  prohibit.  That  was  his  po- 
sition. I give  him  the  credit  of  having  been  con- 
sistent on  that  point.  1 wished  to  give  the  Terri- 
torial Legislature  power  over  all  rightful  subjects 
of  legislation,  leaving  slave  property  and  horse 
property  and  every  other  species  of  property  on 
an  exact  equal  footing;  leaving  the  people  to  make 
their  own  regulations  as  they  pleased  so  that  they 
did  not  violate  the  Constitution.  The  Senator  from 
Mississippi  desired  an  exception  as  to  slavery,  to 
the  effect  that  they  might  protect  it,  but  should 
not  adopt  unfriendly  legislation  to  it,  taking  sla- 
very out  of  the  category  of  other  property.  Mr. 
Clay  among  other  things  said,  in  reply  to  the  Sen- 
ator from  Mississippi,  what  will  now  be  read. 

Mr.  PUGH  read,  as  follows: 

“Mr.  Clay.”  * * * “The  clause  itself  was  Intro- 
duced into  the  bill  by  the  committee  for  the  purpose  of  ty- 
ing up  the  hands  of  the  Territorial  Legislature  in  respect 
to  legislating  at  all,  one  way  or  the  other,  upon  the  subject 
of  African  slavery.  It  was  intended  to  leave  the  legisla- 
tion and  the  law  of  the  respective  Territories  in  the  con- 
dition in  which  the  act  will  find  them.  I slated  on  a former 
occasion  that  I did  not,  in  committee,  vote  for  the  amend- 
ment to  insert  the  clause,  though  it  was  proposed  to  be  in- 
troduced by  a majority  of  the  committee.  I attached  very 
little  consequence  to  it  at  the  time,  and  I attach  very  little 
to  it  at  present.  It  is  perhaps  of  no  particular  importance 
whatever.  Now,  sir,  if  I understand  the  measure  propos- 
ed by  the  Senator  from  Mississippi,  it  aims  at  the  same 
thing.  I do  not  understand  him  as  proposing  that  if  any 
one  shall  carry  slaves  into  the  Territory — although  by  the 
laws  of  the  Territory  he  cannot  take  them  there — the  leg- 
islative hands  of  the  territorial  governments  should  be  so 
tied  a3  to  prevent  it  saying  he  shall  not  enjoy  the  fruits  of 
their  labor.  If  the  Senator  from  Mississippi  means  to  say 
that 


9 


“ Mr.  Davis.  I do  mean  to  say  it. 

“Mr.  Clat.  If  the  object  of  the  Senator  is  to  provide  j 
that  slaves  may  be  introduced  into  the  Territory  contrary 
to  the  lex  loci,  and  being  introduced,  nothing  shall  be  done  j 
by  the  Legislature  to  impair  the  rights  of  owners  to  hold 
the  slaves  thus  brought  contrary  to  the  local  laws,  I cer- 
tainly cannot  rote  for  it.  In  doing  so,  I shall  repeat 
again  the  expression  of  opinion  which  I announced  at  an 
early  period  of  the  session.” 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  There  it  will  be  found  that 
a distinct  issue  was  made  up  between  Mr.  Clay 
and  the  Senator  from  Mississippi.  The  Senator 
from  Mississippi  insisted  that  the  legislation  of 
Congress  should  be  so  framed  as  to  recognize  the 
right  of  the  slaveholder  to  go  into  the  Territory 
and  hold  his  property  in  defiance  of  the  local  law. 
Mr.  Clay  said  that  he  would  never  agree  to  the 
recognition  of  the  doctrine  that  you  could  carry 
slaves  to  a Territory  and  hold  them  against  the 
lex  loci , in  defiance  of  the  local  law.  On  this  dis- 
tinct issue  it  was  that  the  Senator  from  Missis- 
sippi and  the  illustrious  Kentuckian  differed. 
Mr.  Clay  was  against  the  Wilmot  proviso ; but 
he  was  against  repealing  by  Congress  the  Mexi- 
can laws  that  were  adverse  to  slavery.  He  was 
against  the  recognition  by  Congress  of  the  alleged 
right  to  carry  slaves  there,  and  hold  them  in  vio- 
lation of  the  local  law.  He  was  against  auy  act 
that  would  prevent  the  people  of  the  Territories 
from  deciding  for  themselves  whether  they  would 
have  slavery  or  not.  In  other  words,  Mr.  Clay 
supported  and  sustained  every  vote  which  the 
Senator  from  Mississippi  brings  in  judgment 
against  me,  except  one;  and  that  one  was  given 
under  instructions,  as  the  Senator  from  Missis- 
sippi is  well  aware. 

This  debate  shows  clearly  that  the  compromise 
measures  of  1850  were  intended  to  assert  the 
principle  of  non-intervention  by  Congress  with 
slavery  in  the  Territories,  leaving  the  people  to 
do  as  they  pleased,  so  that  they  did  not  violate 
the  Constitution,  and  leaving  the  courts  to  ascer- 
tain whether  they  did  violate  it  or  not. 

Mr.  GREEK.  Will  the  Senator  allow  me  ? 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  I cannot  yield  for  interrup- 
tion. 

Mr.  GREEK.  Very  welL 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  I ask  my  friend  (Mr.  Pugh) 
to  continue  the  extracts  from  that  debate,  on 
both  sides,  a little  further,  in  order  to  put  them 
on  the  record. 

Mr.  PUGH  read  as  follows: 

“Mr.  Davis.”  * * * “ We  are  giving,  or  proposing 
to  give,  a government  to  a Territory,  which  act  rests  upon 
the  basis  of  our  right  to  make  such  provision.  We  sup- 
pose we  have  a right  to  confer  power.  If  so,  we  may 
mark  out  the  limit  to  which  they  may  legislate,  and  are 
bound  not  to  confer  power  beyond  that  which  exists  in 
Congress.  If  we  give  them  power  to  legislate  beyond 
that,  we  commit  a fraud  or  usurpation,  as  it  may  be  done 
openly,  covertly,  or  indirectly.” 

To  which  Mr.  Clay  replied  : 

“Now,  sir,  I only  repeat  what  I had  occasion  to  say  be- 
fore, that  while  I am  willing  to  stand  aside  and  make  no 
legislative  enactment  one  way  or  the  other— to  Rty  off  the 
Territories  without  the  Wilmot  proviso,  on  the  one  hand, 
with  which  I understand  we  are  threatened,  or  without 
an  attempt  to  introduce  a clause  for  the  introduction  of 
slavery  iu  the  Territories — while  I am  for  rejecting  both 
the  one  and  the  other,  I am  content  that  the  law  as  it  ex- 
ists shall  prevail ; and  if  there  be  any  diversity  of  opinion 
as  to  what  it  means,  I am  willing  that  it  shall  be  settled 
by  the  highest  judicial  authority  of  the  country.  While 
I am  content  thus  to  abide  the  result,  I must  say  that  I 


cannot  vote  for  any  express  provision  recognizing  the 
right  to  carry  slaves  there.” 

To  which  Mr.  Davis  rejoined  that — 

“ It  is  said  onr  Revolution  grew  out  of  a preamble ; and 
I hope  we  have  something  of  the  same  character  of  the 
hardy  men  of  the  Revolution  who  first  commenced  the 
war  with  the  mother  country:  something  of  the  spirit  of 
that  bold  Yankee  who  said  be  had  a right  to  go  to  Con- 
cord, and  that  go  he  would ; and  who,  in  the  maintenance 
of  that  right,  met  his  death  at  the  hands  of  a British  sen- 
tinel. Now,  sir,  if  our  right  to  carry  slaves  in  these  Ter- 
ritories be  a constitutional  right,  it  is  our  first  duty  to 
maintain  it.” 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  These  extracts  confirm  tbe 
statement  that  the  issue  was  precisely  as  I have 
stated  it,  and  that  the  Senator  from  Mississippi 
then  took  the  ground  that  he  now  maintains;  but 
that  Mr.  Clay,  the  champion  of  the  compromise 
measures  of  1S50,  took  the  opposite  ground.  Mr. 
Clay,  in  that  very  speech,  answered  the  objection 
about  there  being  two  constructions  of  this  doe- 
trine  of  non-intervention.  He  was  for  non-inter- 
vention by  Congress ; no  restriction  upon  tbe 
Territorial  Legislature;  and  then  leaving  it  to 
the  courts  to  decide  whether  the  territorial  enact- 
ments were  constitutional  or  not.  That  was  the 
position  of  Mr.  Clay;  that  was  the  position  of 
the  champion  of  those  measures. 

The  Senator  from  Mississippi  asserted  his  right 
to  go  with  his  property,  in  violation  of  the  local 
law,  and  said  he  was  going  to  act  upon  the  doc- 
trine of  the  sergeant  at  LexiDglon,  who  said  that 
he  had  a right  to  go  to  Concord,  and  was  going. 
The  Senator  from  Mississippi  modified  his  amend- 
ment so  as  to  make  the  language  more  palatable ; 
but  not  to  change  the  principle,  to  wit:  that  the 
Territorial  Legislature  might  legislate  to  protect 
slavery,  but  not  legislate  in  hostility  to  it.  In 
th^t  shape,  his  amendment  was  rejected.  Then 
Mr.  Chase,  of  Ohio,  offered  the  counterpart,  to 
restrict  the  power,  so  that  the  Territorial  Legis- 
lature might  prohibit  slavery,  but  not  protect  or 
tolerate  it.  That  was  rejected  by  precisely  the 
same  number  of  votes  as  the  proposition  of  the 
Senator  from  Mississippi.  By  these  votes,  the 
Senate  showed  that  the  object  of  the  bill  was  to 
leave  the  Territorial  Legislature  to  do  as  it  pleas- 
ed, subject  to  the  Constitution,  with  the  courts 
to  ascertain  when  it  violated  it;  but  not  to  put 
auy  restriction  on  the  Territorial  Legislature, 
except  that  which  the  Constitution  imposed. 

Now,  sir,  I am  compelled,  in  this  connection, 

! to  do  what  I dislike  to  do — quote  from  my  own 
speeches,  to  show  that  I then  took  the  position 
I do  now  in  vindication  of  the  ground  taken  by 
Mr.  Clay,  and  in  opposition  to  that  assumed  by 
the  Senator  from  Mississippi.  I will  ask  the  Sen- 
ator from  Ohio  to  read  that  extract. 

Mr.  PUGH.  Upon  these  amendments — the  one 
affirming  the  pro-slavery  and  the  other  the  anti- 
slavery position,  in  opposition  to  the  right  of 
the  people  of  tire  Territories  to  decide  the  slavery 
question  for  themselves — Mr.  Douglas  said  : 

“The  position  that  I have  ever  taken  has  been  that 
this  and  all  other  questions  relating  to  the  domestic  affairs 
and  domestic  policy  of  the  Territories,  ought  to  he  left  to 
the  decision  of  the  people  themselves ; and  that  we  ought 
to  be  content  with  whatever  way  they  may  decide  the 
question,  because  they  have  a much  deeper  interest  in 
these  matters  than  we  have,  and  know  much  better  what 
institutions  suit  them  than  we,  who  have  never  been  there, 
ean  decide  for  them.  I would  therefore  have  much  pre- 


10 


ferred  that  that  portion  of  the  bill  should  have  remained 
as  it  was  reported  from  the  Committee  on  Territories,  with 
no  provision  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  the  one  way  or  the 
other.  And  I do  hope  yet  that  that  clause  will  be  stricken 
out.  I am  satisfied,  sir,  that  it  gives  no  strength  to  the 
bill.  I am  satisfied,  even  if  it  did  give  strength  to  it,  that 
it  ought  not  to  be  there,  because  it  is  a violation  ofprin-  | 
ciple— a violation  of  that  principle  upon  which  we  have 
all  rested  our  defence  of  the  course  we  have  taken  on  this 
question.  I do  not  see  how  those  of  us  who  have  taken 
the  position  we  have  taken— that  of  non-intervention — 
and  have  argued  in  favor  of  the  right  of  the  people  to  leg- 
islate for  themselves  on  this  question,  can  support  such  a 
provision  without  abandoning  all  the  arguments  which 
we  used  in  the  presidential  campaign  in  the  year  1848, 
and  the  principles  set  forth  by  the  honorable  Senator  from 
Michigan  (Mr.  Cass)  in  that  letter  which  is  known  as  the 
‘ Nicholson  letter.’  We  are  required  to  abandon  that  plat- 
form ; we  are  required  to  abandon  those  principles,  and 
to  stultify  ourselves,  and  to  adopt  the  opposite  doctrine — 
and  for  what?  In  order  to  say  that  the  people  of  the  Ter- 
ritories shall  not  have  such  institutions  as  they  shall 
deem  adapted  to  their  conditions  and  their  wants.  I 
do  not  see,  sir,  how  such  a provision  can  be  acceptible 
either  to  the  people  of  the  North  or  the  South.” 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  Mr.  President,  it  is  unneces- 
sary for  ine  to  add  one  word  to  the  extract  from 
my  own  speech,  to  show  that  I took  precisely  the 
position  then  that  I take  now.  I will  next  ask 
my  friend  to  read  a brief  extract  from  the  speech 
of  General  Cass  in  opposition  to  the  amendment 
of  the  Senator  from  Mississippi,  and  also  to  the 
amendment  of  Mr.  Chase,  of  Ohio,  and  in  favor 
of  the  same  doctrine  that  I am  now  advocating. 

Mr.  PUGH.  Mr.  Cass  said,  (referring  to  the 
amendment  offered  by  Mr.  Davis  and  Mr.  Chase:) 

“Now,  with  respect  to  the  amendments,  I shall  vote 
against  them  both;  and  then  I shall  vote  in  favor  of  striking 
out  the  restriction  in  the  bill  upon  the  power  of  the  Terri- 
torial governments.  I shall  do  so  upon  this  ground  : I 
was  opposed,  as  the  honorable  Senator  from  Kentucky 
has  declared  he  was,  to  the  insertion  of  this  prohibition 
by  the  committee ; I consider  it  inexpedient  and  unconsti- 
tutional. I have  already  stated  my  belief  that  the  rightful 
power  of  internal  legislation  in  the  Territories  belongs  to 
the  people.” 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  As  I have  already  said,  the 
vote  was  taken  on  these  two  amendments — the 
one  offered  by  the  Senator  from  Mississippi;  the 
other  by  the  former  Senator  from  Ohio — and 
each  of  them  was  rejected  byT  a vote  of,  yeas  25, 
nays  SO;  there  being  precisely  the  same  majority 
against  each.  Having  thus  rejected  the  two 
propositions,  the  one,  affirming  the  right  and 
power  of  the  Territories  to  protect  slavery,  but 
not  to  prohibit  it;  and  the  other  affirming  the 
power  and  duty  to  prohibit,  but  not  to  protect, 
the  record  shows  that  Mr.  Douglas  moved  to 
strike  out  all  in  the  bill  concerning  slavery,  so 
that  the  people  of  the  Territories  might  do  as 
they  pleased,  without  any  other  restriction  than 
the  Constitution.  That  motion  was  voted  down 
when  made  by  myself ; but  subsequently,  after 
the  debate  had  gone  at  great  length,  Mr.  Clay, 
from  his  seat  at  the  corner  of  the  Chamber, 
passed  to  mine,  and  said:  “If  you  will  renew 
your  motion  to  strike  out  that  limitation,  it  will 
now  be  carried,  and  we  shall  save  this  bill.”  I 
stated  to  him  that  my  friend,  the  Senator  from 
Hew  Hampshire,  (Mr.  Norris,)  now  no  more, 
would  not  vote  for  the  bill,  unless  those  words 
were  out;  and  I thought,  out  of  courtesy,  I would 
let  him  make  the  motioD,  as  I had  once  made  it, 
aud  I would  see  him.  At  the  request  of  Mr. 
Clay,  I went  to  Mr.  Norris.  He  made  the  motion 


to  strike  it  out.  It  was  carried  by  a vote  of  82 
in  the  affirmative  to  19  in  the  negative;  thus  re- 
jecting the  doctrine  of  the  Senator  from  Missis- 
sippi, aud  sustaining  the  position  advocated  by 
myself. 

Now,  sir,  I am  free  to  say  to  that  Senator,  that 
he  and  I did  differ  in  that  contest.  I advocated 
non-intervention  then,  as  I do  now.  He  fought 
it  then  gallantly,  as  he  always  fights;  but  he  was 
defeated  by  a vote  of  nearly  two  to  one ; and  I 
was  sustained;  and  my  proposition,  and  not  his, 
became  the  basis  of  those  measures.  Congress 
adjourned  immediately  after  the  passage  of  those 
measures,  in  the  midst  of  a terriffie  excitement, 
North  aud  South.  Northern  agitators  had  in- 
flamed the  passions  and  prejudicesof  the  northern 
people,  by  representing  those  compromise  meas- 
ures as  being  measures  for  the  extension  of  sla- 
very. The  southern  opponents  of  the  measures 
had  inflamed  the  passions  of  the  southern  people 
into  the  belief  that  the  compromise  measures  were 
a sacrifice  of  southern  rights  and  southern  honor. 
Appeals  were  made  to  the  people,  North  and 
South,  by  northern  interventionists  and  southern 
interventionists,  against  those  measures  that  had 
been  passed  by  the  majority — the  one  represent- 
ing them  as  sacrificing  northern  rights  and  north- 
ern honor;  the  other  representing  them  as  sacri- 
ficing southern  lights  and  southern  honor.  That 
was  the  issue. 

I went  to  my  own  State  to  make' my  appeal  to 
my  own  people  in  vindication  of  my  course.  The 
country  knows — history  has  recorded — the  mode 
in  which  I was  received  when  I landed  in  Chi- 
cago. The  City  Council,  filled  with  Abolitionists, 
had  passed  resolutions  annulling  the  fugitiveslave 
law,  instructing  the  police  to  withhold  any’  assist- 
ance in  the  execution  of  the  law,  proclaiming  it 
to  be  a violation  of  the  law  of  God  aud  of  the 
Constitution.  The  standard  of  rebellion  was 
raised.  The  public  passions  were  inflamed.  A 
fugitive  slave  was  about  to  be  arrested,  and  civil 
war  was  anticipated  by  every  man.  It  was  not 
a pleasant  task  to  me  to  go  into  a public  meeting 
thus  inflamed  and  excited  and  infuriated,  and 
tell  those  people  that  they’  had  been  deceived 
about  the  character  of  those  measures;  that  the 
fugitive  slave  law  was  right;  that  it  was  an  act 
required  by  the  Constitution  of  the  country, 
which  we  were  bound  to  support;  that  the  com- 
promise measures  were,  all  of  them,  founded  on 
correct  and  sound  principles.  History  records 
the  fact  that  I met  that  infuriated  populace, 
composed  of  honest  and  intelligent,  but  mis- 
guided men,  and  that  I defended  each  and  every 
one  of  those  measures  before  that  people,  and 
procured  from  them  a resolution  that  the  fugitive 
slave  law  should  be  executed,  and  the  compro- 
mise measures  of  1850  sustained.  I mu9t  trouble 
my  friend  to  read  a passage  from  my  own  speech 
before  that  meeting  at  Chicago,  in  vindication  of 
those  measures — a speech  made  under  such  cir- 
cumstances that  my’  best  friends  warned  me  that 
my  life  would  pay  the  forfeit — and  then  you  will 
see  on  what  principle  I defended  them. 

Mr.  PUGH  read  as  follows: 

“ These  measures  are  predicated  on  the  great  funda- 
mental principle  that  every  people  ought  to  possess  tira 


risrht  of  for  mine:  and  regulating  their  own  internal  con- 
cerns and  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way.  It  was  j 
supposed  that  those  of  our  fellow-citizens  who  emigrated  I 
to  the  shores  of  the  Pacific  and  to  our  other  Territories,  I 
were  as  capable  of  self-government  as  their  neighbors  and 
kindred  whom  they  left  behind  them;  and  there  was  no 
reason  for  believing  that  they  had  lost  any  of  their  intelli- 
gence or  patriotism  by  the  wayside,  while  crossing  the 
isthmus  or  the  plains.  It  was  also  believed,  that  after 
their  arrival  in  the  country,  when  they  had  become  fami- 
liar with  its  topography,  climate,  productions,  and  re- 
sources, and  had  connected  their  destiny  with  it,  they  were 
fully  as  competent  to  judge  for  themselves  what  kind  of 
laws  and  institutions  were  best  adapted  to  their  condition 
and  interests,  as  we  were  who  never  saw  the  country,  and 
knew  very  little  about  it.  To  question  their  competency 
to  do  this,  was  to  deny  their  capacity  for  self-government". 
If  they  have  the  requisite  intelligence  and  honesty  to  be 
intrusted  with  the  enactment  of  laws  for  the  government 
of  white  men,  I know  of  no  reason  why  they  should  not 
be  deemed  competent  to  legislate  for  the  negro.  If  they  ' 
are  sufficiently  enlightened  to  make  laws  for  the  protec-  ! 
tion  of  life,  liberty,  and  property — of  morals  and  educa- 
tion—to  determine  the  relations  of  husband  and  wife,  of 
parent  and  child,  I am  not  aware  that  it  requires  any  I 
higher  degree  of  civilization  to  regulate  the  affairs  of  mas-  j 
ter  and  servant.  These  things  are  all  confided  by  the  Con- 
stitution to  each  State  to  decide  for  itself,  and  I know  of 
no  reason  why  the  same  principle  should  not  be  extended 
to  the  Territories.  My  votes  and  aeis  have  been  in  ac- 
cordance with  these  views  in  all  cases,  except  (he  instances 
in  which  I voted  under  your  instructions.  Those  were 
your  votes,  and  not  mine.  I entered  my  protest  against 
them  at  the  time — before  and  after  they  were  recorded— 
and  shall  never  hold  myself  responsible  for  them.” 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  Mr.  President  after  that 
speech,  made  under  the  circumstances  to  which  I 
have  referred,  more  than  half  a million  copies 
were  circulated  throughout  the  country  by  order 
of  tire  great  national  committee  of  New  York, 
which  became  alarmed  lest  the  Union  should  be 
dissolved — a speech  which  was  laid  on  the  tables 
of  Senators  at  the  opening  of  the  session,  and  re- 
ceived a wider  circulation  and  more  approval 
than  any  speech  of  my  whole  life.  In  view  of 
these  facts,  I submit  whether  it  is  fair  to  charge 
me  with  having  for  the  first  time  at  Freeport,  in 
1858,  asserted  the  doctrine  that  the  people  of  a 
Territory  can  decide  this  question  for  them- 
selves? I told  the  people  of  Chicago,  in  1850, 
that  the  compromise  measures  rested  on  the  great 
fundamental  principle  that  every  people  ought 
to  possess  the  right  to  manage  their  own  domes- 
tic concerns  in  their  own  way;  that  the  people 
of  the  States  possessed  the  power,  and  the  people 
of  the  Territories  ought  to  have  it ; that  all  my 
votes  had  been  cast  in  accordance  with  that 
principle,  except  when  acting  tinder  their  instruc- 
tions ; that  those  votes  were  the  votes  of  those 
who  instructed  me,  and  not  my  own,  and  that  I 
would  never  hold  myself  responsible  for  them. 
Is  it  fair  for  Senators  to  quote  those  votes,  given 
under  those  circumstances  ? The  Legislature  of 
Illinois  was  elected  a short  time  afterwards. 
"When  they  assembled,  they  passed  resolutions 
approving  of  the  compromise  measures  of  1850, 
and  instructing  the  Senators  from  thatJptate,  in 
all  new  territorial  organizations,  to  incorporate 
the  principle  that  the  people  of  the  Territory 
should  decide  the  slavery  question  for  themselves. 

Thus,  sir,  I was  sustained  in  my  appeal  to  my 
own  people  in  justification  of  my  opposition  to 
the  views  of  the  Senator  from  Mississippi.  IIow 
was  if.  with  his  appeal  to  his  people?  The  coun- 
try has  not  forgotten,  and  will  not  soon  forget, 
with  what  anxiety  all  America  looked  to  Missis- 


sippi, to  Alabama,  to  Georgia,  to  South  Carolina, 
to  know  whether  or  not  the  submissionists — as 
the  friends  of  those  measures  were  sneeringly 
called — were  to  he  sustained  and  the  Union 
saved,  or  whether  the  ideas  now  proclaimed  and 
then  held  by  the  Senator  from  Mississippi  were 
to  become  the  rule  of  action  in  the  southern 
States.  I know  not  what  he  meant;  but  the 
country  understood  and  believed,  so  far  as  I 
know,  that  the  fate  of  the  Union  depended  upon 
the  r suit  of  those  States  agreeing  to  acquiesce 
or  not  acquiesce.  I do  not  doubt  the  attachment 
of  the  Senator  from  Mississippi  to  this  Union;  I 
do  not  doubt  his  devotion  to  his  country.  His 
services  in  the  field  and  in  the  Cabinet  and  in 
the  Senate,  have  proved  his  attachment;  but  I 
do  believe,  that  if  he  had  been  sustained  in  his 
appeal  to  the  people  of  Mississippi  against  the 
compromise  measures  of  1850,  the  Union  could 
not  have  been  preserved.  He  appealed  to  Mis- 
sissippi. General  Foote  was  the  standard-bearer 
of  the  friends  of  the  compromise  measures  of 
1850;  the  Senator  (Mr.  Davis)  the  st.andard- 
beai'er  of  his  own  views  as  he  has  expressed  them 
in  the  Senate.  The  world  knows  the  result. 
Mississippi  decided  against  the  Senator,  (Mr.  Da- 
vis,) and  in  favor  of  his  opponent.  Mississippi 
rebuked  the  doctrine  of  intervention,  and  placed 
her  Foote  upon  it. 

How  was  it  in  Alabama?  There  Yancey  led 
off,  and  was  sustained  by  the  same  body  of  men 
that  lately  attempted  to  breakup  the  Charleston 
convention.  The  same  Yancey  who  avowed  the 
same  doctrine  of  intervention  at  Baltimore  in 
1848,  when  it  was  voted  down  by  his  own  party, 
that  same  Yancey  boldlv  bore  the  flag  of  the  in- 
terventionists of  Alabama  against  the  compro- 
mise measures  of  1850;  but  Alabama,  like  Mis- 
sissippi, told  Mr.  Yancey  and  his  co-intervention- 
ists to  obey  the  laws  of  the  land  and  acquiesce 
in  the  principle  of  non-intervention  as  affirmed 
in  the  measures  of  1850. 

In  Georgia,  too,  the  battle  raged  all  along  the 
line,  as  the  Senator  from  that  State  (Mr.  ToOmbs) 
can  bear  testimony.  He  found  it  necessary  to 
form  a union  of  Union  men  against  the  oppo- 
nents of  the  compromise  measures  of  1850.  The 
battle  waged  fiercely  and  savagely.  You,  sir, 
(addressing  Mr.  Toombs,)  and  your  associates, 
were  denounced  as  submissionists  because  you 
sustained  the  principle  of  non-intervention,  as 
affirmed  in  the  compromise  measures  of  1850. 
They  were  not  going  to  submit — no,  not  they; 
but  when  the  election  came,  Georgia  decided 
against  them,  and  in  favor  of  the  compromise 
measures,  if  I recollect  right,  by  about  twenty- 
one  thousand  majority.  Then,  instead  of  being 
the  fire-eaters,  they  themselves  in  turn  became 
the  submissionists;  but  they  submitted  by  com- 
pulsion of  their  own  people.  The  people  of 
Georgia  told  the  Senator  before  my  eye  (Mr. 
Iverson)  that  he  must  submit  to  the  doctrines 
which  he  taught  in  his  speech  of  1848,  when 
General  Cass  was  the  candidate  for  the  Presi- 
dency. 

So  in  South  Carolina.  Your  Rhett-s  led  the 
forces  there  against  the  compromise  measures. 
The  gallant  and  patriotic  Butler,  who,  although 


12 


he  had  opposed  the  measures  as  a Senator,  feel- 
ing that  it  was  his  duty  to  sustain  the  constitu- 
ted authorities,  on  the  other  hand,  led  those  who 
were  in  favor  of  acquiescing  in  the  action  of 
Congress.  And  South  Carolina  herself  decided 
against  those  men  who  were  going  to  break  up 
parties  and  the  Union  on  this  question  of  inter- 
vention and  non-intervention. 

Mr.  HAMMOND.  Mr.  President 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  I prefer  not  to  yield. 

Mr.  HAMMOND.  One  single  word. 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  Well. 

Mr.  HAMMOND.  At  the  time  of  the  passage 
of  the  compromise  measures,  Mr.  Kkett  was  not 
in  the  Senate. 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  I know  he  was  not. 

Mr.  HAMMOND.  The  question  that  arose 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  I must  say  to  my  friend 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER,  (Mr.  Fitzpat- 
rick.) Does  the  Senator  from  Illinois  yield  the 
floor  to  the  Senator  from  South  Carolina? 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  I cannot. 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.  The  Senator  from 
South  Carolina  will  resume  his  seat. 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  I am  aware  that  Mr.  Rhett 
was  not  in  the  Senate  at  that  time;  but  Mr. 
Rhett’s  opinions  were  known  then  as  well  as 
they  are  now;  and  he  led  the  men  who  were  not 
willing  to  submit  to  the  compromise  measures  of 
1850,  and  was  rebuked  by  his  own  people,  and 
he  became  a submissionist  perforce.  Here  you 
have  the  verdict  of  the  American  people,  North 
and  South,  in  favor  of  the  doctrine  of  non-inter- 
vention. The  southern  interventionists,  who  had 
been  defeated  and  overthrown  at  home,  at  last 
came  to  the  conclusion  that  they,  too,  would  sub- 
mit, not  from  choice,  but  because  they  could  not 
help  it;  and  they  said  then  to  us,  “Let  us  reu- 
nite the  Democratic  party,  and  present  a united 
front  against  the  Abolitionists  of  the  North.” 
We  said  to  them:  “Gentlemen,  although  you 
have  erred ; although  you  have  erred  egregi- 
ously  on  this  question,  in  resisting  Don-interveu- 
tion,  we  will  forgive  you,  if  you  will  come  up 
to  Baltimore  and  acquiesce  in  a resolution  estab- 
lishing non-intervention  for  the  future.”  We  re- 
ceived the  Senator  from  Mississippi  on  the  terms, 
as  we  supposed,  of  acquiescence  in  the  compro- 
mise measures  of  1850,  and  the  affirmance  of  non- 
intervention as  the  rule  of  the  party  in  the  fu- 
ture. We  granted  him  “quarter”  after  he  had 
been  condemned,  and  was  ready  for  execution — 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I scorned  it  then,  and  scorn  it 
now. 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  Yes,  sir;  as  I scorned  his 
threat  not  to  grant  “ quarter”  the  other  day.  I 
like  the  spirit  that  animates  him  to  scorn  “quar- 
ter.” But,  sir,  the  convention  at  Baltimore, 
nevertheless,  did  ratify  and  confirm  these  com- 
promise measures  as  containing  the  rule  of  action 
of  the  party.  He  will  not  deny  that  the  conten- 
tion, by  a unanimous  vote,  decided  in  favor^of 
the  compromise  measures;  that  General  Pierce 
was  nominated  for  President  on  that  issue;  that 
he  was  elected  on  that  issue  and  none  other;  that 
he  never  would  have  been  elected  but  for  that 
issue;  and  the  Senator  from  Mississippi  became 
Secretary  of  War  by  virtue  of  the  same  issue. 


These  are  stubborn  facts.  He  never  could  have 
been  Secretary  of  War  if  the  Democratic  nomi- 
nee had  not  been  elected.  General  Pierce  could 
never  have  been  elected  or  nominated  if  he  had 
not  stood  upon  the  issue  of  non  intervention  by 
Congress  with  slavery  in  States  and  Territories. 
When  the  party  came  together,  we,  the  friends  1 
of  the  compromise  measures  of  1850;  we,  the 
friends  of  non-intervention,  were  magnanimous 
and  tolerant.  We  made  no  issues  upon  those 
who  had  differed  with  us ; we  were  generous  and 
forgiving ; we  did  not  remind  them  of  their  faults, 
nor  of  their  humiliation.  We  recognized  them 
as  our  equals.  We  never  expected  to  be  told 
that  we  were  to  be  pursued  to  the  death  ; and 
that  “ no  quarter”  was  to  be  granted  to  us  when- 
ever you  got  the  accidental  power  to  inflict  re- 
venge. We  are  tolerant.  If  we  succeed  now, 
we  do  not  propose  to  proscribe  anybody  because 
of  a difference  of  opinion,  so  long  as  he  remains 
in  the  Democratic  organization  and  supports  its 
nominees. 

Mr.  President,  having  shown  that  General 
Pierce  was  nominated  and  elected  on  this  princi- 
ple of  non-intervention ; that  he  stood  pledged  by 
every  dictate  of  honor  and  fidelity  to  carry  it  out 
in  good  faith,  I will  now  proceed  to  show  how  it 
was  carried  out  in  the  enactment  of  the  Kansas- 
Nebraska  bill.  At  that  time  the  Senate  of  the 
United  States  had  a chairman  of  the  Committee 
on  Territories  who  did  unquestionably  reflect  the 
sentiments  of  the  body,  and  of  the  Democratic 
party  in  the  body.  It  having  become  necessary 
to  organize  the  Territories  of  Kansas  and  Ne- 
braska, the  Committee  on  Territories,  through  me, 
as  its  chairman,  on  the  4th  of  January,  1854, 
made  a report  to  this  body,  accompanied  by  a bill. 

In  this  report  we  set  forth  distinctly  the  princi- 
ples upon  which  it  was  proposed  to  organize  these 
Territories.  I will  ask  my  friend  from  Ohio  to 
read  an  extract  from  that  report,  to  show  what 
wefe  those  principles. 

Mr.  PUGPI  read,  as  follows: 

“ In  the  judgment  of  your  committee,  those  measures  ftiio 
compromise  measures  of  1S50J  were  intended  to  have  a far 
more  compreben-ive  and  enduring  effect  than  the  mere  ad- 
justment of  the  difficulties  arising  out  of  the  recent  acquisition 
of  Mexican  territory.  They  were  designed  to  establish  certain 
great  principles,  which  would  not  only  furnish  adequate  reme- 
dies for  existing  evils,  but,  in  ail  time  to  come,  avoid  the  perils 
of  a similar  agitation,  by  withdrawing  the  question  of  slavery 
from  the  Halls  of  Congress  and  the  political  arena,  and  com- 
mitting i:  to  the  arbitrament  of  those  who  were  immediately  in- 
terested in,  and  alone  responsible  for,  its  consequences.  With 
a view  of  conforming  their  action  to  tire  settled  policy  ot  the 
Government,  sanctioned  by  tire  approving  voice  of  the  American 
people,  your  committee  have  deemeipt  t l»eir  duty  to  incorporate 
and  perpetuate,  in  their  territorial  bill,  the  principles  and  spirit 
of  those  measures.” 

After  presenting  and  reviewing  certain  provi- 
sions of  the  bill,  the  committee  conclude  as  fol- 
lows: 

“ Fro^  these  provisions  it  is  appatent  that  the  compromise 
measures  of  1850  affirm  and  rest  upon  the  following  propositions- 

“ First.  That  all  questions  pertaining  to  slavery  in  the  Ter 
ritories,  and  in  the  new  States  to  be  formed  therefrom,  are  to 
be  left  to  the  decision  of  the  people  residing  therein,  by  their 
appropriate  representatives,  to  be  chosen  by  them  for  that  pur- 
pos*e, 

“ Second.  That  all  cases  involving  title  to  slaves,  and  ques- 
tions of  personal  freedom,  are  referred  to  the  adjudication  of 
the  local  tribunals;  with  the  right  of  appeal  to  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States. 

“ Third.  That  the  provision  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 


13 


States  in  respect  to  fugitives  from  service  is  to  be  carried  into 
faithful  execution  in  ail  the  organized  Territories  the  same  as  in 
the  States.  The  substitute  for  the  bill  which  your  committee 
have  prepared,  and  which  is  coir,  mended  to  the  favorable  action 
of  the  Senate,  proposes  to  carry  these  propositions  and  princi- 
ples into  practical  operation,  in  the  precise  language  of  the 
compromise  measures  of  JS50.” 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  It  appears,  from  these  ex- 
tracts from  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Terri- 
tories, that  we  did  not  propose  to  mislead  any 
man,  or  to  permit  any  man  to  he  misled,  in  re- 
gard to  the  principle  on  which  the  proposed  ter- 
ritorial action  was  to  be  based.  The  principles 
were  distinctly  set  forth:  first,  that  the  slavery 
question  was  to  be  banished  forever  from  the 
Halls  of  Congress,  and  remanded  to  the  people  of 
the  Territories  who  were  immediately  interested  : 
secondly,  that  all  questions  involving  the  title  to 
slaves,  and  matters  of  personal  freedom,  were  re- 
ferred to  the  adjudication  of  the  local  tribunals, 
with  a right  of  appeal  to  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States.  Here  non-intervention  was 
established  as  an  invariable  rule  of  action ; the 
Territories  were  to  legisla'  e as  they  pleased,  so 
that  they  did  not  violate  the  Constitution ; and  if 
they  passed  any  law  impairing,  or  injurious  to, 
the  rights  of  property  in  slaves,  suit  should  he 
brought  in  the  local  court  of  the  Territory,  with 
a right  of  appeal  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States;  and  that  we  would  abide  the  result 
of  such  decisions.  Then  the  fugitive  slave  law 
was  to  be  faithfully  executed  and  carried  into  ef- 
fect. Can  any  man  have  an  excuse  for  not  know- 
ing that  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  the  Kan- 
sas-Uebraska  act  was,  that  Congress  renounced 
forever  all  right  or  pretext  for  interfering  with 
slavery  in  the  Territories,  either  to  establish,  pro 
hibit,  or  protect  ? Remember,  the  questions  to  he 
referred  to  the  courts  were  such  questions  as 
should  arise  under  the  territorial  enactments,  and 
the  cases  all  were  to  go  into  the  local  courts,  with 
a right  of  appeal.  Certainly,  if  gentlemen  did 
not  understand  the  provisions  of  the  hill,  it  was 
not  the  fault  of  the  committee  that  reported  it. 

I insist  that  the  terms  of  the  bill  are  still  more 
explicit  on  this  point.  Having  given  notice,  in 
the  report,  of  what  we  intended  to  do,  and  how 
we  intended  to  do  it,  and  for  what  purpose  we 
put  the  provision  in  the  bill  itself  in  language  so 
plain  that  he  who  runs  may  read,  there  can  be 
no  excuse  for  not  understanding  it.  In  the  four- 
teenth section  of  the  bill  we  provided: 

“ That  the  Constitution  and  all  laws  of  the  United  States 
which  are  not  locally  inapplicable,  shall  have  the  same  force 
and  effect  within  the  said  Territory  as  elsewhere  within  the 
United  States,  except  the  eighth  section  of  the  act  preparatory 
to  the  admission  of  Missouri  into  the  Union,  approved  March 
6.  1820,  which  being  inconsistent  with  the  principle  of  non-in- 
tervention by  Congress  with  slavery  in  the  States  and  Territories, 
as  recognized  by  the  legislation  of  18o0,  commonly  called  the 
* compromise  measures,’  is  hereby  declared  inoperativeand  void  : 
it  being  the  true  iftient  and  meaning  of  this  act  not  i "legislate 
slavery  into  any  Territory  or  State,  nor  to  exclude  it  therefrom, 
but  to  leave  the  people  thereof  perfectly  free  to  form  and  regu- 
late their  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way,  subject  only 
to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.” 

There  you  find  several  distinct  propositions 
affirmed  in  the  body  of  the  bill — that  is  the  pro- 
vision of  the  bill  which  the  late  Colonel  Benton 
denounced  as  being  a mere  stump  speech;  because 
the  drafter  of  the  hill  was  careful  enough  to  in- 
corporate the  distinct  propositions  which  it  was 


intended  to  carry  out.  We  did  not  mean  to  leave 
it  in  doubt.  In  the  first  place,  the  principle  an- 
nounced was,  that  we  repealed  the  Missouri  com- 
promise because  it  was  inconsistent  with  the  prin- 
ciple of  non  intervention  by  Congress  with  slavery- 
in  the  States  and  Territories,  as  affirmed  in  the 
compromise  measures  of  1850.  There  is  the  as- 
sertion, that  the  compromise  measures  were  in- 
consistent with  intervention  for  any  purpose;  that 
it  was  necessary  to  establish  non-intervention, 
without  any  exception  or  any  qualification,  in 
order  to  carryout  the  principle  of  the  compromise 
measures  of  1850;  and  we  repealed  the  Missouri 
compromise  merely  for  the  purpose  of  applying 
that  principle  and  banishing  the  slavery  question 
from  Congress,  and  remanding  it  to  the  people  of 
the  Territories.  That  was  the  object,  the  only 
object,  for  which  we  ever  repealed  it.  Every 
Senator  who  voted  for  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill 
declared  by  his  vote  that  non  intervention  was  the 
rule  in  the  compromise  measures  of  1850.  He  is 
estopped  from  denying  it;  and  it  was  well  un- 
derstood, at  the  time,  that  we  were  making  an 
indorsement  of  the  principle  of  the  compromise 
measures  of  1850  ; and  we  insisted  that  we  would 
never  repeal  the  Missouri  restriction  until  we  had 
that  recognition.  I remember  well  that  when 
southern  Senators,  who  had  opposed  the  compro- 
mise measures  of  1850,  came  to  me  and  asked  me 
to  strike  out  the  words  “being  inconsistent  with 
the  principle  of  non-intervention  by  Congress 
with  slavery  in  the  States  and  Territories,  as 
recognized  by  the  legislation  of  1850,  commonly 
called  the  compromise  measures,”  I asked  them 
why  ? They  told  me  they  had  voted  against  the 
measures  of  1850,  and  this  seemed  to  stultify 
. them,  by  compelling  them  to  affirm  them.  I said, 
in  these  consultations,  “You  have  agreed  to  with- 
draw your  opposition  and  acquiesce,  and  I must 
have  it  inserted  in  the  bill,  that  we  repeal  the 
Missouri  restrict  ion  only7  for  the  purpose  of  car- 
rying  out  the  principle  of  non-intervention ;”  and 
there  are  men  within  the  hearing  of  my7  voice  to 
whom  these  reasons  were  given.  It  was  con- 
sidered as  rather  a bitter  pill  to  those  who  had 
opposed  the  compromise  measures  of  1850;  but 
we  insisted  that  they  should  swallow  it  as  the 
only  condition  on  which  we  would  pass  such  a 
bill.  We  had  the  recognition  of  the  principle, 
and  we  had  the  pledge  of  honor  of  every  Senator 
who  voted  for  the  Kansas-Uebraska  act,  that  he 
would  stand  by  the  doctrine  of  non  intervention 
in  all  time  to  come.  The  Journal  shows  it.  We 
took  his  bond,  and  recorded  it  on  the  Journal;  it 
still  exists,  and  will  be  imperishable. 

What  else  is  asserted? 

44  It  being  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  this  act  not  to 
legislate  slavery  into  any  Slate  or  Territory,  nor  to  exclude  it 
therefrom.” 

That  does  not  tell  what  the  intent  was,  but  what 
was  not  the  intent.  What  was  the  intent? 

41  But  to  leave  the  people  thereof  perfectly  free  to  form  and 
legulate  their  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way,  subject 
only  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.” 

That  was  the  intent.  Every  man  who  voted 
for  the  bill  declared,  on  his  oath,  that  that  was  the 
intent:  non-intervention  by  Congress;  the  people 
left  free  to  do  as  they  pleased,  so  that  they  did 


14 


not  violate  the  Constitution,  am]  the  courts  to  : 
find  out  whether  they  violated  the  Constitution  of  j 
the  United  States  or  not;  but  Congress  never  to  j 
interfere  in  any  case.  That  is  the  way  we  agreed 
to  this  bill.  The  record  shows  it.  I have  no  con- 
troversy with  any  man  who  was  not  a member 
of  the  body  at  the  time  the  bill  passed,  nor  with 
any  man  who  has  changed  his  opinions  since  and 
will  avow  the  change;  but  I assert  that,  beyond 
cavil,  beyond  dispute,  beyond  pretext,  the  object 
was,  as  avowed  in  the  bill  itself — non-interven- 
tion by  Congress  with  slavery  in  the  States  and 
Territories;  and  I cannot  permit  it  to  be  said, 
without  reply,  that  non-intervention  meant  only 
that  Congress  should  not  establish  or  prohibit 
slavery,  and  did  not  mean  that  it  should  not  pro- 
tect it.  Sir,  the  record  shows  that  it  did  mean 
that  Congress  should  never  interfere  for  any  pur-  ; 
pose,  either  to  protect,  prohibit,  or  abolish. 

That  very  question  was  raised  bjT  a Senator  , 
from  Michigan,  Mr.  Stewart,  while  the  bill  was 
pending,  after  this  proposition  which  I have  read 
had  been  voted  in.  He  said  that  while  we  had 
stated  the  principle  correctly,  still  the  effect  of 
the  bill  would  be,  by  repealing  the  Missouri  com- 
promise, to  revive  the  old  French  laws  protecting 
slavery,  and  that  thus  we  should  have  intervened 
in  the  very  act  of  non-intervening,  by  reviving 
a law  for  the  protection  of  slavery.  That  was 
his  opinion.  Mr.  Stuart  laid  down  the  proposi- 
tion as  a lawyer  that  to  repeal  a repealing  act 
revived  the  former  act;'  and  hence,  when  we  re-  ! 
pealed  the  Missouri  compromise  we  revived  the  j 
French  law  that  had  become  void  when  that  ' 
compromise  was  established.  That  eminent  law- 
yer and  jurist,  Mr.  Badger,  of  Forth  Carolina, 
replied  that  Mr.  Stewart  had  properly  stated  the 
common  law  rule  on  that  subject;  but  that  the 
civil  law  rule  was  different,  that  where  ever  the 
civil  law  existed,  if  you  repealed  a repealing  act, 
it  did  not  revive  the  former  act,  and  hence  that 
no  amendment  was  necessary  on  that,  point.  After 
consultation,  an  amendment  was  prepared,  which 
is  known  to  the  country  as  the  Badger  amend- 
ment, the  object  of  which  was  to  declare  that 
Congress  should  not  protect  slavery  itself,  nor  do 
any  act  by  which  it  should  be  protected,  con- 
trary to  the  will  of  the  people;  that  Congress 
would  not  only  not  protect  it,  but  would  not,  do 
anything  that  would  cause  a revival  of  any  law 
that  would  protect  it,  the  object  being  to  leave 
the  Territories  a white  sheet  of  paper,  with  no- 
thing but  the  Constitution  upon  it,  and  to  say  to 
the  people,  “Go  and  write  on  it  what,  you  please; 
slavery,  if  you  want  it;  and  no  slavery,  if  you  do 
not  want  it.”  It  was  to  be,  in  the  classic  lan- 
guage of  that  day,  a clean  tabula  rasa.  The  way 
we  understood  it.  the  way  the  people  understood 
it,  was  the  way  it  reads  now.  Let  me  call  your 
attention  to  the  Badger  amendment,  to  show  that, 
that  proviso  was  put  in  for  the  express  purpose  of 
declaring  that  Congress  would  not  even  permit 
any  old  law  which  would  protect  slavery  to  be 
revived.  That  amendment  first  was  in  the  very 
language  that  it  should  not  revive  any  law  which 
would  protect  or  establish  slavery.  It  was  mod- 
ified so  as  to  read  in  these  words: 

"Provided,  That  nothing  herein  contained  shall  be  con 


strned  to  revir  e or  put  in  force  any  law  or  regulation  which 
may  have  existed  prior  to  the  act  of  the  6th  of  March,  U'20, 
either  protecting , establishing,  or. abolishing  slavety.” 

That  is  to  say,  Congress  will  do  neither;  each 
is  inconsistent  with  Don-intervention.  These 
propositions  were  all  in  the  bill.  I well  remem- 
ber the  history  of  the  Badger  amendment.  When 
I found  it  necessary  to  put  it  in,  to  satisfy  the 
scruples  of  some  men  as  to  whether  the  repeal  of 
the  Missouri  restriction  would  not  revive  the  old 
French  law,  I,  as  chairman  of  the  committee, 
having  charge  of  the  bill,  went  to  every  Senator 
in  the  body  friend^  to  the  measure,  who  was 
then  present,  to  know  whether  it  was  satisfac- 
tory, and  that,  too,  after  the  debate;  and  every 
single  Senator,  North  and  South,  who  was  then 
present,  and  friendly  to  the  hill,  agreed  to  that 
amendment  in  those  precise  words.  I remember 
the  last  one  whom  I consulted.  I saw  Mr.  Badger 
entering  from  the  door  of  the  cloak  room  at  the 
corner.  He  had  been  out,  and  I went  to  consult 
him.  He  said,  “Yes,  it  is  right.”  I suggested  to 
him  that  I had  seen  every  Senator,  going  over 
all  the  names,  who  was  friendly  to  the  hill,  and 
everyone  had  agreed  to  it.  “Certainly,”  said 
he.  “ Now,”  said  I,  “who  shall  offer  it?”  Said 
he,  “It  ought  to  come  from  a southern  man.  A 
northern  man  brought  forward  the  repeal,  and  a 
southern  man  ought  to  bring  forward  the  proviso 
against  reviving  the  old  laws  for  the  protection 
of  slavery.”  I asked  him  if  he  would  do  it? 
“Certainly,  sir,”  said  he.  He  walked  right  to 
his  desk  and  offered  it.  Pending  the  vote  on  the 
amendment,  two  or  three  southern  Senators  came 
in,  who  wrere  not  aware  of  the  agreement,  and 
they  voted  in  the  negative;  and  those  were  the 
only  negative  votes,  according  to  my  recollec- 
tion, against  the  Badger  amendment.  I say,  then, 
the  Badger  amendment  was  put  in  for  the  pur- 
pose, and  the  only  purpose,  of  declaring  that, 
while  Congress  would  not  interfere,  it  would  not 
permit,  as  a consequence  of  its  act,  any  law  to 
be  revived  that  would  either  protect  or  abolish 
slavery,  or  deprive  the  people  of  the  right  to  do 
as  thej"  pleased  on  that  question. 

Mr.  President,  the  record  is  so  full,  so  explicit 
on  this  matter,  that  there  is  no  room  for  miscon- 
struction. The  only  point  on  which  anybody 
differed,  so  far  as  I know,  was  the  simple  one  of 
the  extent  of  the  limitation  imposed  by  the  Con- 
stitution on  the  Territorial  Legislature.  That  was 
the  point  referred  to  the  courts.  Slavery  was 
banished  forever  from  Congress;  the  people  were 
to  do  as  they  pleased,  so  that  they  did  not  vio- 
late the  Constitution  ; and,  if  they  did,  the  courts 
were  to  determine  the  extent  of  the  limitations 
imposed  by  the  Constitution  on  their  action. 
That  was  stated  to  he  the  object  in  the  report 
accompanying  the  bill.  That  is  shown  to  be  the 
object  in  the  judiciary  clauve  of  the  bill;  giving 
jurisdiction  to  the  territorial  courts  in  all  cases 
touching  the  title  to  slaves,  or  personal  freedom 
without  regard  to  the  amount  involved  in  con- 
troversy, as  in  other  cases.  I could  take  up  the 
debates  and  show  that  it  was  understood  at  that 
time,  and  by  eminent  southern  men,  that  that 
was  the  onlj*  point  referred  to  the  courts.  I will 
trouble  the  Senate  only  with  one  authority  on 


15 


that  point,  and  I quote  him  simply  because  of ' | 
his  eminent  character  and  the  respect  this  body 
and  the  country  have  for  him — I mean  Mr.  Hun- 
tee,  of  Virginia. 

Mr.  PUGH  read  the  following  extract  from 
Mr.  Hunter’s  speech  of  February  24,  1854: 

“ The  bill  provides  that  the  Legislatures  of  these  Territories 
shall  have  power  to  legislate  over  all  rightful  subjects  of  legisla-  |j 
tion  consistently  with  the  Constitution.  And,  if  they  should  | j 
assume  powers  which  are  thought  to  be  inconsistent  with  the  j 
Constitution,  the  courts  will  decide  that  question  wherever  it  ! j 
may  be  raised.  There  is  a difference  of  opinion  among ■ the  'j 
friends  of  this  measure  as  to  the  extent  of  the  limits  which  jj 
the  Constitution  imposes  upon  the  Territorial  legislatures  1 
This  bill  proposes  to  leave  these  differences  to  the  decision  of  i 
the  courts.  To  that  tribunal  1 am  willing  to  leave  this  decision.  ! 
as  it  was  once  before  proposed  to  be  left  by  the  celebrated  com-  j 
promise  of  the  Senator  from  Delaware,  ( iVI r.  Clayton) — a 
measure  which,  according  to  my  understanding,  was  the  best,  ii 
compromise  which  was  offered  upon  this  subject  of  slavery.  I 
say,  then,  that  I am  willing  to  leave  this  point,  upon  which  the  ' 
friends  of  the  bill  areai  difference,  to  the  decision  of  the  courts  ” jl 
Appendix  to  Congressional  Globe,  first  session  Thirty- third 
Congress , vol.  29,  p.  224. 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  There  Mr.  Hunter  states  the  ! 
object  of  the  bill  as  explicitly  and  as  clearly  as  jj 
it  is  possible  for  any  man  holding  my  opinions  to  |j 
state  it.  The  only  point  referred  to  the  courts ! 
was  the  extent  of  the  limitation  imposed  by  the  I 
Constitution  on  the  authority’ of  the  Territorial  j i 
Legislature.  I could  cite  more  than  half  the  j 
body,  perhaps,  to  this  one  point,  but  it  would 
only  be  multiplying  authority-  on  a point  that  is  | 
too  clear  to  be  disputed. 

I have  been  quoting  thus  far  only-  senatorial 
authority  as  to  the  meaning  of  this  act.  I wish  | 
to  show  now  that  the  people  of  the  country — yea,  j 
the  southern  people — understood  the  Kansas-,! 
Nebraska  bill  at  that  time  as  I do  now,  and  as  I 
explained  it  then.  I will  quote  the  resolutions 
of  one  sovereign  State,  the  empire  State  of  the! 
South,  a State  that  took  the  lead  in  1850-51  in  ! 
putting  down  the  heresy  of  congressional  inter  j 
vention  for  the  protection  of  slavery.  I will  ask 
my  friend  from  Ohio  to  read  the  resolutions  of  ; 
the  Legislature  of  Georgia  approving  of  the  prin- 
ciples contained  in  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill, 
relative  to-  the  subject  of  slavery. 

Mr.  PUGH  read  as  follows: 

Resolution  in  relation  to  the  Territory  of  Nebraska.  i 

The  State  of  Georgia,  in  solemn  convention,  having  firmly 
fixed  herself  upon  the  principle  of  the  compromise  measures  of 
1850,  relating  to  the  subject  of  slavery  in  the  Territories  of  the  | 
LTnited  States,  as  a final  settlement  of  the  agitation  of  that  ques-  j 
tion,  its  withdrawal  from  the  Halls  of  Congress  and  the  political  ! 
arena  and  its  reference  to  the  people  of  the  Territories  inter  | 
ested  therein;  and  distinctly  recognizing  in  those  compromise 
measures  the  doctrine  that  it  is  not  competent  for  Congress  to 
impose  any  restrictions  as  to  the  existence  of  slavery  among 
them,  upon  the  citizens  moving  into  and  settling  upon  the  Ter 
rir.ories  of  the  Union,  acquired,  or  to  be  hereafter  acquired,  but 
that  the  question  whether  slavery  shall  or  shall  not  form  a part 
of  their  domestic  institutions,  is  for  them  alone  to  determine  for 
themselves;  and  her  present  Executive  having  reiterated  and 
affirmed  the  same  fixed  policy  in  his  inaugural  address  : 

Be  it  resolved  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  j 
of  the  State  of  Georgia  in  General  Assembly  met , That  t he 
Legislature  of  Georgia,  as  the  representatives  of  the  people, 
speaking  their  will,  and  expressing  their  feelings,  have  had  their 
confidence  strengthened  in  the  settled  determination  of  the  great 
body  of  the  northern  people,  to  carry  out,  in  good  faith,  those 
principles  in  the  practical  application  of  them  to  the  hills  report- 
ed by  Mr.  Douglas,  from  the  Committee  on  Territories,  in  the 
United  States  Senate,  at  the  present  session,  proposing  the 
organization  of  a territorial  government  for  the  Territory  of 
Nebraska. 

And  be  it  further  resolved,  Thai  our  Senators  in  Congress 
be,  and  they  are  hereby,  instructed,  and  our  Representatives 
requested,  to  vote  for  and  support  those  principles,  and  to  use 


all  proper  means  in  their  power  for  carrying  them  out.  either  as 
applied  to  the  government  of  the  Territory  of  Nebraska,  or  in 
any  other  bill  for  territorial  government  which  may  come  before 
them. 


Resolved  further,  That  his  excellency  the  Governor  be  re- 
quested lo  transmit  a copy  of  these  resolutions  to  each  of  our 
denatots  and  Representatives  in  Congress. 

JOHN  E.  WARD, 

Speaker  of  the  House  of  Representatives. 

JOHN  D.  rfTELL, 
President  of  the  Senate. 

In  Senate,  agreed  to,  February  17,  J854. 

HUGH  M.  MOORE, 
Secretary  of  the  Senate. 

In  House  of  Representatives,  concurred  in,  February  17, 
1854. 

WILLIAM  T.  WOFFORD, 

Clerk  of  House  of  Representatives . 
Approved,  February  20,  1854. 

HERSCHEL  V.  JOHNSON, 


Governor . 


Mr.  DOUGLAS.  These  resolutions  were  adopt- 
ed by  the  State  of  Georgia  pending  the  Kansas- 
Nebraska  bill  in  the  Senate  when  its  provisions 
were  well  known,  its  features  well  understood; 
and  the  Legislature  then  stated,  in  the  preamble, 
the  principles  which  are  embodied  in  the  bill, 
and  which  were  embodied  in  the  compromise 
measures  of  1850.  They  give  a construction  to 
the  celehrated  Georgia  platform,  which  was  the 
withdrawal  of  the  question  of  slavery  from  the 
Halls  of  Congress  and  the  political  arena,  and  its 
reference  to  the  people  of  the  Territories  inter- 
ested therein — almost  the  precise  language  of  my 
report  as  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Territo- 
ries when  the  bill  was  introduced.  Georgia  ap- 
proved of  the  policy  of  withdrawing  the  question, 
from  the  Halls  of  Congress,  and  referring  it  to  the 
people  of  the  Territories.  She  approved  of  that 
provision  which  distinctly  recognized  the  com- 
promise measures  of  1850,  and  provided  that  the 
question  whether  slavery  should,  or  should  not, 
form  a part  of  their  domestic  institutions,  was  for 
them  alone  to  determine  for  themselves.  Georgia 
having  stated  that  these  principles  were  affirmed 
by  the  compromise  measures  of  1850 — that  she 
approves  of  these  principles — instructs  her  Sen- 
ators to  vote  for  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  intro- 
duced by  myself,  as  chairman  of  the  Committee 
on  Territories.  It  is  undeniable  that  Georgia 
understood  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  as  I under- 
stand it.  She  understood  the  compromise  meas- 
ures of  1850  as  I understand  them.  These  Geor- 
gia resolutions  are  as  good  a platform  as  I want. 
I am  willing  to  take  the  preamble  and  resolutions 
adopted  by  the  State  of  Georgia  in  1854,  without 
the  dotting  of  an  i,  or  the  crossing  of  a t,  and  de- 
clare them  to  be  the  Democratic  platform.  I hear 
men  behind  me  say  they  are  not.  I am.  I will 
take  t.he  Georgia  platform  with  its  own  interpre- 
tation, not  mine.  I could  not  use  language  to 
express  niy  own  opinions  more  clearly  and  une- 
quivocally than  I find  them  standing  on  the 
statute-book  of  Georgia  at  this  day  as  instructions 
to  her  Senators.  . 

The  country  then  understood  this  measure  as 
I now  explain  it;  and  I will  show  you  that  the 
House  of  Representatives,  as  well  as  t.he  Senate, 
understood  it  in  the  same  way.  It  will  be  recol- 
lected that  Colonel  Pdchardson,  of  Illinois,  was 
chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Territories,  and, 
as  such,  reported  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  in  the 


16 


House  of  Representatives.  He  explained  it  then 
as  I do  now.  The  reputation  that  he  made  dur- 
ing that  session  in  the  passage  of  this  great  meas- 
ure, so  commended  him  to  southern  Democrats, 
that  when  the  next  Congress  assembled  they  pre- 
sented his  name  as  the  Democratic  candidate  for 
Speaker,  against  the  Republican  candidate,  Mr. 
Banks,  of  Massachusetts.  Pending  that  election 
for  Speaker,  the  southern  Opposition  members 
charged  Mr.  Richardson  with  not  being  sound 
on  the  slavery  question,  because  he  held  to  this 
odious  doctrine  of  non-intervention,  or  squatter 
sovereignty,  as  polite  gentlemen  are  in  the  habit 
of  terming  it.  General  Zollicoffer  propounded 
questions  for  the  candidates  for  Speaker  to  an- 
swer. These  questions  were  read  from  the 
Clerk’s  table,  and  Mr.  Richardson,  as  well  as  the 
other  candidates,  proceeded  to  answer.  I will 
ask  my  friend  to  read  the  answer  of  Governor 
Richardson. 

Mr.  PUGH  read,  as  follows: 

Mr.  Richardson.  The  Constitution  does  not,  in  my 
opinion,  carry  the  institution  of  any  States  into  the  Terri- 
tories; but  it  affords  the  same  protection  there  to  the  insti- 
tutions of  one  State  as  to  another.  The  citizen  of  Virginia 
is  as  much  entitled,  in  the  common  territory,  to  the  pro- 
tection of  his  property,  under  the  Constitution,  as  the 
citizen  of  Illinois;  both  are  dependent  upon  the  legislation 
of  the  territorial  government  for  laws  to  protect  their  prop- 
erty, of  whatever  kind  il  may  be.  Thus  it  will  be  seen, 
that  though  there  may  be  upon  this  point  a difference 
theoretically — involving  questions  for  judicial  decision — 
yet  there  is  none,  practically,  among  the  friends  of  non- 
intervention by  Congress,  as  the  practical  result  is  to  place 
the  decision  of  the  question  in  the  hands  of  those  who  are 
most  deeply  interested  in  its  solution,  namely:  the  people 
of  the  Territory,  who  have  made  it  their  home,  and  whose 
interests  are  most  deeply  involved  in  the  character  of  the 
institutions  under  which  they  are  to  live.” — Congressional 
Globe , vol.  32,  part  1,  p.  222. 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  Subsequently,  but  on  the 
same  day,  January  12,  1856,  in  reply  to  a ques- 
tion by  Mr.  Bingham,  Colonel  Richardson  said  : 

“I  said  in  my  remarks  this  morning,  that,  in  my  opin- 
ion, the  people  of  a Territory  have  the  right  either  to  es- 
tablish or  prohibit  African  slavery.  I think  that  is  an 
answer  to  the  gentleman's  question.” — Ibid.,  p.  22T. 

That  was  the  answer  of  Colonel  Richardson 
when  a candidate  for  Speaker,  and  questioned, 
by  southern  as  well  as  northern  men,  as  to  his 
opinions  on  this  very  question.  I was  not  here 
at  the  time.  I was  prostrate  upon  a sick  bed,  in 
Indiana,  with  very  little  prospect  of  ever  seeing 
the  Capitol  again.  When  Colonel  Richardson’s 
answer  was  read  to  me,  I was  rejoiced  to  hear 
that  he  had  given  a clear  and  explicit  explana- 
tion of  the  true  meaning  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska 
bill,  as  we  understood  it.  The  Journals  show 
that,  upon  this  answer  being  given,  the  House, 
on  the  same  day,  proceeded  to  the  one  hundred 
and  eighth  ballot  for  Speaker,  and  I ask  my  friend 
from  Ohio  to  read  the  names  of  the  men  voting 
for  Mr.  Richardson  after  this  answer  was  made: 

Mr.  PUGH  read,  as  follows: 

“ For  Mr.  Richardson — Messrs.  Aiken,  Allen,  Barclay, 
Barksdale,  Bell,  Hendley  S.  Bennelt,  Bncock,  Bowie, 
Boyce,  Branch,  Burnett,  Cadwalader,  Carutbers,  Caskie., 
Clingman,  Howell  Cobb,  W.  R.  W.  Cobb,  Craige,  David- 
son, Denver,  Dowdell,  Edmundson.  Elliot,  English,  Faulk- 
ner, Florence,  Thomas  J.  D.  Fuller,  Goode,  Greenwood, 
Augustus  Hall,  Sampson  W.  Harris,  Thomas  L Harris, 
Herbert,  Hickman.  Houston,  .Jewett,  George  W.  Jones, 
Keitt,  Kelly.  Kidwell,  Letcher,  Lumpkin,  S.  S.  Marshall, 
Maxwell,  McMullin,  McQueen,  Smith  Miller,  Millson, 
Mordecai,  Oliver,  Orr,  Peck,  Phelps,  Powell,  Quitman, 


Ruffin,  Rust.  Sandidge,  Savage,  Samuel  A.  Smith,  William 
Smith,  Stephens,  Sfewart.  Talbott,  Vail,  Warner,  Wat- 
kins, Winslow,  Daniel  B.  Wright,  and  John  V.  Wright. ” 
— Congressional  Globe,  vol.  32,  part  1,  p.  228. 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  The  conntry  will  not  hesi- 
tate to  recognize  distinguished  names  on  that  list 
which  they  have  been  in  the  habit  of  regarding 
with  great  favor  and  confidence.  Every  southern 
Democrat,  without  exception,  as  shown  by  the 
Journal,  recorded  his  vote  for  Governor  Richard- 
son for  Speaker  after  that  explanation  of  the  Kan- 
sas-Nebraska bill.  If  my  memory  serves  me,  a 
distinguished  gentleman  from  South  Carolina, 
and  others  now  present,  had  refused  to  vote  for 
Richardson  before  this  explanation  was  made, 
and  this  explanation,  declaring  himself  in  favor 
of  non-intervention,  in  favor  of  the  rights  of  the 
people  of  the  Territories  to  do  as  they  pleased, 
was  so  perfectly  satisfactory  to  the  members  from 
South  Carolina  and  other  southern  States,  that 
they  all  voted  for  him  on  the  next  ballot.  (Laugh- 
ter, and  applause  in  the  galleries.) 

Who  ever  expected  that,  in  less  than  five  years 
from  that  day,  jmu  would  find  these  same  gen- 
tlemen making  a test  against  a man  because  he 
held  the  identical  sentiments  which  were  then 
affirmed?  I reckon  I am  about  as  sound  on  this 
question  as  Governor  Richardson.  He  and  I 
agree  precisely  in  our  construction  of  the  act.  He 
was  the  chairman  of  the  Territorial  Committee 
in  one  House,  and  I in  the  other;  and  less  than 
five  years  ago  you  affirmed,  either  that  you  ap- 
proved of  Richardson’s  construction,  or  that  his. 
entertaining  those  views  constituted  no  objection 
to  him.  Who  has  changed  since  that  time?  Is 
it  I,  who  now  avow  the  principles  I did  then;  or 
those  who  now  denounce  me  for  holding  the  same 
opinions  which  they  then  seemed  to  sanction  by 
their  votes?  I make  no  tests  with  gentlemen.  If 
they  have  honestly  changed  their  opinions  since 
that  time,  they  should  frankly  avow  the  change. 
No  man  should  cherish  such  a pride  for  consist- 
ency as  to  cling  to  error  one  moment  after  he  is 
convinced  of  it;  but  a man,  whenever  he  changes 
his  opinions,  ought  to  avow  it,  and  give  the  rea- 
sons for  the  change,  so  as  to  remove  the  scales 
from  our  eyes  also.  If  I can  forgive  all  these 
honorable  gentlemen  for  having  changed  their 
position,  is  it  asking,  too  much  of  them  to  forgive 
me  for  my  fidelity  to  principles  of  action  to  which 
they  and  I were  solemnly  committed  within  so 
short  a period? 

But,  Mr.  President,  I want  to  add  a little  more 
authority  on  this  point.  It  will  be  remembered 
that  in  1848  Alabama  took  the  lead  at  the  Balti- 
more convention  in  asserting  the  doctrine  of  con- 
gressional intervention  in  the  Territories.  It  will 
be  remembered  that  in  1856  she  took  the  lead  in 
demanding  of  the  Cincinnati  convention,  as  an 
ultimatum,  the  repudiation  of  the  doctrine  of 
intervention,  and  the  adoption  in  its  place  of  the 
doctrine  of  non-intervention.  The  Alabama  State 
convention  which  appointed  delegates  to  Cincin- 
nati in  1856,  happened  to  be  in  session  when  the 
contest  for  Speaker  took  place  between  Colonel 
Richardson  and  Mr.  Banks.  The  Democracy  of 
Alabama  were  looking  to  Washington  for  the  re- 
sult of  that  contest  with  intense  anxiety.  There 
stood  the  gallant  Richardson,  the  author  of  the 


17 


Lansas-Xebrasba  bill  so  far  as  the  House  was 
oncerned,  the  nominee  of  his  party,  proclaiming 
iO  the  world  in  bold  language  its  true  meaning; 
.nd  every  Democrat  in  Alabama  heartily  sympa- 
hized  with  him,  and  hoped  that  Richardson,  the 
lefender  of  southern  rights,  might  be  elected 
Speaker.  The  State  convention,  then  in  session, 
I'epresenting  the  Democracy  of  Alabama,  felt  so 
leeply  upon  this  subject,  that  they  deemed  it 
'.heir  duty  to  go  out  of  the  usual  routine,  and 
lass  a resolution  of  approval.  I ask  my  friend 
o read  that  resolution. 

Hr.  PUGH  read,  as  follows; 

“ Resolved , That  the  course  pursued  by  the  gallant  men  of 
he  South  and  North,  in  their  efforts  to  organize  the  present 
ilongressof  the  United  States,  by  the  election  of  Mr.  Richard 
ion  as  Speaker,  receives  our  hearty  approval.  They  have  acted  j 
vise*  in  holding  out  against  the  designs  of  the  fanatical  ma-  ] 
arity  to  force  a Free-Soil  organization  upon  them;  that  in  , 
| heir  hands  we  can  safely  trust  the  rights  of  the  South  and  the 
rue  principle  of  conservative  nationality,  with  the  confidence  J 
hat  they  will  never  abandon  them  in  any  trial,  even  amidst  the 
l;onfasion  and  terrors  of  disorganization.” 

Hr.  DOUGLAS.  Mr.  President,  I have  only  to 
iay  upon  th;s  point  that  it  seems  the  Alabama 
State  convention,  in  1S56,  did  not  regard  Colo- 1 
lel  Richardson’s  construction  of  the  Kansas-Ne- 
praska  bill  as  so  monstrous  a heresy  as  to  dis- 
qualify every  man  for  office  who  held  his  opin- 
ons.  It  seems  so  from  the  fact  that  they  indorsed  ; 
die  gallant  Richardson  and  the  faithful  southern- 
ers who  voted  for  him.  This  inference  is  con- 
firmed by  the  fact  that  the  same  convention 
nstrueted  their  delegates  to  the  Cincinnati  con- 
vention to  insist  upon  the  express  recognition  of 
[the  doctrine  of  non-intervention  by  Congress 
with  slavery  in  the  Territories  as  the  only  con- 
dition upon  which  Alabama  would  consent  to  be 
[represented  at  Cincinnati.  This  was  the  ultima- 
tum of  the  Alabama  Democracy  in  1856.  I ask 
my  friend  from  Ohio  to  read  that  part  of  the 
resolutions. 

Hr.  PUGH  read,  as  follows; 

“ 8.  That  it.  is  expedient  that  we  should  be  represented  in  the 
Democratic  national  convention,  upon  such  conditions  as  are 
Iheretnafter  expressed. 

“ 9.  That  the  delegates  to  the  Democratic  national  conven- 
tion, to  nominate  a President  and  Vice  President,  are  hereby 
laxpressly  instructed  to  insist  that  the  said  convention  shall  adopt 
'a  platform  of  principles,  as  the  basis  of  a national  organization, 
prior  to  the  nomination  of  candidates,  unequivocally  asserting, 
*n  substance,  the  following  propositions:  1.  The  recognition 
and  approval  of  the  principles  of  non-intervention  by  Congress 
npon  the  subject  of  slavery  in  the  Territories.  2.  That  no  restric- 
tion or  prohibition  of  slavery,  in  any  Territory,  shall  hereafter 
be  made  by  any  acl  of  Congress.  3.  That  no  State  shall  be 
irefused  admission  into  the  Union  because  of  the  existence  of 
(slavery  therein.  4.  The  faithful  execution  and  maintenance 
of  the  fugitive  slave  law. 

“ JO.  That  if  said  national  convention  shall  refuse  to  adopt 
the  propositions  embraced  in  the  preceding  resolution,  our 
delegates  to  said  convention  are  hereby  positively  instructed  to 
i withdraw  therefrom.” 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  There  is  some  very  sound 
and  wholesome  doctrine  contained  in  these  in- 
structions. The  Alabama  delegates  were  to  de- 
mand that  the  platform  be  made  first,  and  that 
the  platform  should  expressly  affirm  the  doctrine 
jof  non-intervention.  The  Cincinnati  convention 
.acceded  to  the  demands  of  the  Alabama  Democ- 
racy. I indorsed  those  propositions;  I am  will- 
ing to  abide  by  them  now.  They  are  a fair  ex- 
position of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill.  They  are 
identical  with  the  Cincinnati  platform.  The 


Charleston  convention  indorsed  those  identical 
propositions,  and  Alabama  seceded  because  the 
convention  did  so!  Alabama  went  into  the  Cin- 
cinnati convention  demanding  non  intervention 
as  the  condition  on  which  she  would  remain. 
She  got  it.  She  went  into  the  Charleston  con- 
vention demanding  the  reverse  of  non-interven- 
tion as  the  only  condition  on  which  she  would 
remain.  She  did  not  get  it,  and  she  went  out. 
Alabama  led  the  bolt  at  Charleston  solely  for 
the  reason  that  the  majority  of  the  convention 
adopted  the  Alabama  ultimatum  of  1856  ! I re- 
cognize the  right  of  the  Democracy  of  Alabama 
to  change  their  opinions  just  as  often  as  they 
please.  Very  few  men  live  who  have  not  changed 
many  opinions.  Men  who  have  more  regard  for 
truth  than  consistency  will  change  whenever  con- 
vinced of  their  error.  Hence  I do  not  condemn 
Alabama  for  bolting  now  for  the  very  reason  that 
she  assigned  for  going  in  the  Cincinnati  conven- 
tion in  1856;  but  it  is  not  to  be  expected  that 
we  who  accepted  her  ultimatum  then,  and  have 
ever  since  observed  it  in  good  faith,  should  be 
satisfied  to  be  denounced  as  enemies  to  the 
South,  for  holding  fast  to  the  same  principles 
which  she  then  proclaimed. 

I repeat,  that  I am  willing  now  to  stand  by 
those  terms  and  conditions  that  Alabama  pre- 
scribed as  her  ultimatum  in  1856  I must  do  this 
justice  to  the  Democracy  of  Alabama:  I do  nqt 
believe  the  Democracy  of  that  State  indorse  or 
approve  of  this  attempt  to  break  up  the  Demo- 
cratic party  of  the  Union  because  the  party 
would  not  change  the  platform.  I believe  the 
people  of  Alabama  are  now  as  much  attached  to 
the  principles  of  the  Democratic  party,  as  they 
understood  them  themselves  and  proclaimed 
them  to  the  world,  as  they  were  in  1856.  I do 
not  believe  that  Alabama  will  follow  Mr.  Yancey 
now  in  his  mad  scheme  to  break  up  the  Demo- 
cratic party  in  quest  of  Congressional  interven- 
tion any  more  than  she  did  in  1S48,  when  he 
attempted  the  same  thing. 

At  this  point,  the  honorable  Senator  yielded 
to  a motion  to  adjourn. 

WEDNESDAY,  MAY  16,  1860. 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  Mr.  Preseident,  I feel  that  it 
is  due  to  the  Senate  to  express  my  sincere  thanks 
for  the  courtesy  they  extended  to  me  yesterday, 
in  postponing  the  remainder  of  my  remarks  until 
to  day,  when  it  was  evident  that  I was  physically 
exhausted.  I fear  that  I shall  be  under  the  ne- 
cessity of  claiming  the  indulgence  of  the  body 
also  for  the  desultory  manner  in  which  I shall 
present  my  views  to  day,  and  possibly  for  my  in- 
ability to  say  all  that  I would  like  to  have  pre- 
sented to  the  Senate  on  this  question.  A recur- 
rence of  a severe  disease  of  the  throat,  which  I 
contracted  some  years  ago,  in  discussions  in  tire 
open  air  in  vindication  of  the  principle  of  non- 
intervention against  the  assaults  of  the  Republi- 
can party,  has  severely  affected  my  voice  and 
impaired  my  physical  strength.  However,  I will 
proceed  as  best  I may,  to  conclude  what  I have 
to  say  upon  the  question. 

In  the  first  place,  I will  answer  some  objections 


18 


that  have  been  made  to  my  course,  and  some  of 
the  evidences  that  have  been  adduced  to  convict] 
me  of  having  given  a wrong  construction  to  the 
Kansas-Nebraska  bilL  The  first  one  is  the  action 
of  the  Senate,  my  own  vote  included,  upon  what 
was  known  as  the  Chase  amendment  to  the  Kan 
sas-Nebraska  act,  at  the  time  of  its  passage.  It 
will  be  recollected  that  after  the  Senate  had 
adopted  the  provision  in  the  fourteenth  section 
of  the  bill,  which  declared  the  true  intent  and 
meaning  of  the  act  to  be  “not  to  legislate  slavery  ! 
into  any  State  or  Territory,  nor  to  exclude  it 
therefrom,  but  to  leave  the  people  thereof  per 
fectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic  1 
institutions  ip  their  own  way,  subject  onlv  to  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,”  Mr.  Chase,  of 
Ohio,  offered  the  following  additional  amendment, 
to  insert  the  words: 


“ Under  which  the  people  or  ihe  Territory,  through  their  i 
appropriate  representatives,  may,  if  they  see  fit,  prohibit  the  ! 
existence  of  slavery  therein. “ 

It  wi  1 be  observed  that  that  amendment  was 
precisely  the  same  in  its  legal  effect  as  the  one  ; 
which  Mr.  Chase  submitted  to  the  compromise  i 
measures  of  1850,  by  which  the  people  of  a Ter- 
ritory should  have  the  power  to  prohibit  slavery  ; 
but  not  the  power  to  introduce  and  protect  it. 
The  amendment  which  he  offered  to  the  Kansas-  j 
Nebraska  bill  was  intended  to  have  precisely  th&  \ 
same  effect,  and  was  the  counterpart  of  the  propo- 
sition of  the  Senator  from  Mississippi,  offered  as 
an  amendment  to  the  compromise  measures  of  j 
1850,  that  the  Territorial  Legislature  should 
have  the  power  to  protect,  but  not  to  exclude  or  i 
prohibit  slavery.  MVh§n  this  amendment  was 
offered  by  Mr.  Chase  it  stood  in  the  position  of  j 
an  amendment  to  an  amendment.  The  record  j 
shows  that  Mr.  Pratt,  of  Maryland,  appealed  to  ] 
Governor  Chase  to  accept  an  additional  amend- 
ment, by  inserting  the  words  “or  introduce” 
after  the  word  “prohibit*”  so  that  it  would  read 
that  the  people  of  a Territory  might  prohibit  or 
introduce  slavery.  Governor  Chase’s  amendment 
being  an  amendnmet  to  an  amendment,  the  propo- 
sition of  Mr.  Pratt  was  out  of  order.  Mr.  Sew- 
ard, of  New  York,  made  the  point  of  order, 
which  was  sustained  by  the  Chair,  and  conse- 
quently Governor  Chase  having  refused  to  accept 
the  words  “or  introduce,”  it  was  not  in  order  to 
move  the  amendment.  I will  have  an  extract 
read  from  the  speech  of  Governor  Pratt,  of 
Maryland,  on  that  occasion,  showing  what  was 
the  understanding  at  the  time  of  the  object  of 
Mr.  Chase’s  amendment. 

Mr.  PUGH  read,  as  follows: 


“ Mr.  Pratt  said  : Mr.  President,  the  principle  which  the 
Senator  from  Ohio  adopts  as  the  principle  of  his  amendment  is. 
that  the  question  shall  he  left  entirely  and  exclusively  to  the 
people,  whether  they  will  prohibit  slavery  or  not.  Now,  for 
the  purpose  of  testing  the  sincerity  of  the  Senator,  and  for  the 
purj>ose  of  deducing  the  principle  of  his  amendment  correctly, 
I propose  to  amend  it  by  inserting  after  the  word  ‘ prohibit  ’ the 
words  ‘ or  introduce;'  so  that,  if  my  amendment  be  adopted, 
and  the  amendment  of  the  Senator  from  Ohio,  as  so  amended, 
be  introduced  as  a part  of  the  bill,  the  principle  which  he  says 
he  desires  to  have  tested  will  be  inserted  in  the  bill — that  the 
people  of  the  Territories  shall  have  power  to  prohibit  or  intro 
dace  slavery  as  they  may  see  proper.  I suppose  the  question 
will  he  taken  on  the  amendment  which  I offer  to  the  amend 
ment.” 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  As  I remarked,  Mr.  Seward, 
of  New  York,  objectedto  Governor  Pratt’s  amend- 


ment to  insert  the  words  “or  introduce,”  by  which 
he  was  deprived  of  the  opportunity  of  having  a 
vote  on  it;  and  Governor  Chase  having  refused 
to  accept  that  amendment,  it  left  the  Senate  to 
vote  simply  on  the  question  whether  they  would 
so  amend  the  bill  as  to  give  the  power  to  pro- 
hibit without  the  power  to  introduce  and  protect 
slavery.  That  amendment  was  rejected  because 
the  words  offered  by  Governor  Pratt  were  not  ac- 
cepted. And  yet,  sir,  in  the  face  of  these  facts, 
my  vote  against  this  Chase  amendment  has  been 
cited  as  evidence  that  I myself  was  unwilling  to 
allow  the  people  to  act  either  for  or  against 
slavery  in  the  Territories.  The  debate  on  this 
amendment  shows  clearly  and  conclusively  that 
the  understanding  of  the  framers  of  the  bill  was, 
that  we  were  to  allow  the  people  to  act  as  they 
pleased,  so  that  they  did  Dot  violate  the  Consti- 
tution, for  or  against  slavery  as  they  choose;  and 
if  their  territorial  enactments  were  inconsistent 
with  the  Constitution,  the  courts  were  to  apply 
the  remedy,  but  not  Congress.  The  record  shows 
that  Mr.  Shields,  then  my  colleague,  appealed  to 
Governor  Chase  to  accept  of  the  amendment  of 
Mr.  Pratt.  Mr.  Shields  said : 

“ If  ihe  honorable  Senator  will  permit,  I will  suggest  to  him, 
if  he  wishes  to  test  that  proposition,  to  pot  the  converse  as  sug- 
gested by  the  honorable  Senator  from  Maryland,  and  then  it 
will  be  a fair  proposition.  Let  'he  Senator  from  Ohio  accept 
the  amendment  of  the  Senator  front  Maryland  tor  the  pnrpose 
of  testing  the  qnestion.’* 

I will  ask  my  friend  from  Ohio  also  to  read 
what  Mr.  Senator  Badger,  of  North  Carolina,  then 
said  in  respect  to  this  Chase  amendment. 

Mr.  PUGH  read  as  follows: 

“Mr.  President,  I have  understood,  I find,  correctly,  the 
purport  of  the  amendment  offeied  by  the  honorable  Senator 
from  Ohio.  The  purpose  of  the  amendment  and  the  effect  of 
the  amendment,  if  adopted  by  the  Senate,  and  standing  as  it 
does,  are  clear  and  obvious.  The  effect  of  the  amendment,  and 
the  design  of  the  amendment , are  to  overrule  and  shbvert  the 
very  proposition . introduced  into  the  bill  upon  the  motion  of 
the  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Territories.  [Mr.  Dougla9.J 
Is  not  that  clear?  The  position  as  it  stands,  is  an  unre- 
stricted and.  unreserved  reference  to  the  territorial  authori- 
ties. or  the  people  themselves,  to  determine  upon  the  question 
of  slavery;  and,  therefoie,  by  the  very  terms,  as  well  as  by  the 
I obvious  meaning  and  legal  operations  of  that  amendment,  [of 
Mr.  Pratt,]  to  enable  them  either  to  exclude,  or  to 
I introduce,  or  to  allow  slavery.  If,  therefore,  the 
amendment  proposed  by  the  Senator  from  Ohio  were  appended 
to  the  bill  in  the  connec'ion  in  which  he  introduces  it,  the  ne- 
cessary and  inevitable  effect  of  it  would  be  to  control  and  limit 
ihe  language  which  the  Senate  has  just  put  into  the  bill,  and 
to  give  it  this  construction  ; that  though  Congress  leaves  them 
to  regulate  their  own  domestic  institutions  as  they  please,  yet, 
in  regard  to  the  subject  matter  of  slavery,  the  power  is  confined 
to  the  exclusion  or  prohibition  of  it.  1 say  this  is  both  the 
legal  effect  and  the  manifest  design  of  the  amendment.  The 
legal  effect  is  obvious  upon  the  statement;  the  design  is  obvious 
upon  ihe  refusal  of  the  gentleman  to  incorporate  in  his  amend- 
ment what  was  suggested  by  my  honorable  friend  from  Mary- 
land. the  propriety  and  fairness  of  which  were  instantly  seen  by 
my  friend  from  Illinois,  [Mr.  Shields.  J 
* * * * * * * * * 

“ T have  no  hesitation,  therefore,  in  saying  that  I shall  vote 
against  the  amendment  of  the  Senator  from  Ohio.  The  clause 
as  it  stands  is  ample.  It  submits  the  whole  authority  to  the 
Territory  to  determine  for  itself  That,  in  my  judgment,  is  the 
place  where  it  ought  to  be  put.  If  the  people  of  these  Territories 
choose  to  exclude  slavery . so  far  from  considering  it  a wrong 
done  to  me.  or  to  my  constituents , I shall  not  complain  of  it. 
It  is  their  own  business .” 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  I now  ask  that  the  vote  ou 
rejecting  the  Chase  amendment,  for  the  reasons 
assigned  in  the  debate  which  I have  quoted,  may 
be  read. 


Mi 

"T 
v ■' 

■! 

U 

tin. 

fi,j; 

l!u' 

}!<•' 

51 

ilie 

jetf 

act 

to 

pro 

the 

h- 

t.’i 

thi 

me 

me 

pn 

eti 

1? 

ha 

in 


to 

h 

t 

IS 

6! 

hi 

fi: 

v 

Si 


t 

ti 

2' 

j< 

0 

In 

L 

it 


a 

1 

1 

§ 

I 

a 

i 

( 

t 

1 


19 


Mr.  Pl  GH  read  as  follows: 

" “ The  qoesi;oa  being  taken  by  yeas  and  nays  on  the  amen  1-  | 

.g  ^ent  of  Mr.  Chase,  if  -esc bed—  yeas  10.  nays  3'». 

, " 1 K as — Messrs.  Chase,  Do  I^e  of  Wisconsin,  F^ss^nden.  | 

'!  ?ish.  Foote.  H^nilin.  Seward,  Smith, Snmner,  and  Wade — 10.  L 
- “ Nays — Messrs.  Adams.  Atchison.  Badger,  Bell.  Benja- 

r.:n.  Bro  Ihead.  Hrown.  Bntler,  Ciav,  Clavfon.  Dawson.  Dixon. 

? 0 odge  ot  Iowa.  Doug'a?.  Fvans.  Fitzpatrick.  Gwin.  Houston.  ! 

.lunter.  Johnson.  Jo:  :s  ot  Iowa,  Jones  of  Tennessee.  Mason. 

" Horton,  No  r:s.  P • . Pratt.  Rusk,  Sebastian,  Shields,  Slidell.  j 
■:  ?tnan,  Toncey.  Walker,  Weller,  and  Williams — 86. 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  Thus  it  will  be  seen,  from 
the  record,  that  the  Chase  amendment  was  re-  j ; 
1 ! eeted  because  it  did  not  leave  tbe  people  free  to  j 
; act  on  tbe  subject,  either  for  or  against  slaverv, 

:o  introduce,  protect,  or  prohibit,  as  they  saw  i 
proper;  and  that  these  reasons  were  assigned  at  , 

3 (the  time  by  southern  men — Pratt  of  Maryland,  ! 

: Badger  of  North  Carolina,  and  others — for  voting  | 
against  the  Chase  amendment.  If  those  who  cited 
this  amendment,  and  my  votes  upon  it,  against  j 
me,  had  read  the  debate  as  well  as  the  amend- 
- ment  itself,  they  would  have  found  that  it  proved 
• precisely  the  reverse  of  that  for  which  it  was 
cited  against  me. 

? The  amendment  offered  by  my  colleague,  in 
1S56,  to  the  Toombs  hill,  and  my  vote  against  it, 

1 have  been  cited  as  evidence  that  it  was  not  the  j 
intention  or  the  understanding  of  any  of  us,  wheu 
the  Kansas- Nebraska  bill  passed,  to  allow  the 
people  to  act  on  this  quesiion.  I will  ask  that  j 
the  Trcmeull  amendment  he  also  read.  The  bill 
to  which  that  amendment  was  offered  was  a hill  | 
.known  as  the  Toombs  hill,  to  authorize  the  peo- 
ple of  Kansas  to  form  a constitution  and  come  1 
into  the  Union  as  a State.  It  was  not  offered  as 
an  amendment  to  a territorial  bill,  hilt  to  a State  ] 
hill;  and,  as  an  amendment  to  a State  hill,  was  I 
| fixing  a construction  to  a territorial  bill  which 
was  to  cease  to  operate  by  the  admission  of  a 
State  under  the  hill  which  we  were  then  passing.  , 

Mr.  PUGH  read  as  follows: 

. Ci  .ind  be  it  further  macled  That  the  provision  in  tbe  act  I 
* to  organize  the  Territories  of  Kansas  anil  Nebra>ka,*  which  ! 
declares  it  to  he  * the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  said  act  nor  to  1 
1 legislate  slavery  info  any  Territory  or  State,  or  ro  exclude  it' 

1 therefrom  ; but  to  leave  the  people  thereof  perfectly  free  to  form  { 
and  regulate  their  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way.  sub  ; 

: ject  only  to  the  Construtkm  of  he  United  States.*  teas  inter.  / 
i ed  to  an  i iloes  confer  upon  or  leave  to  the  ■people  of  the  Terri 
terry  of  Kansas  fa  . power  at  any  time  through  its  Territorial 
. Legislature  to  exclude  s'arern/  from  said  Territory,  or  to  . 
recognize  or  regulate  it  therein.'' 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  the  j 
amendment  of  my  colleague  was  to  declare,  in  . 
the  hill  for  the  admission  of  a State  into  the  j 
Union,  that  it  was  the  intent  of  the  act  of  Con-  j 
: gress  organizing  that  Territory,  to  allow  the  j 
people  of  the  Territory  either  to  introduce  or  ex- 
clude slavery,  as  they  saw  proper.  This  auiend- 
i ment  was  rejected  by  the  Senate  on  two  grounds. 

| One  was,  that  it  was  irrelevant  to  append  it  to  a 
State  bill,  when  it  was  declaring  the  intent  of  a 
I territorial  hill.  The  other  ground  was,  that  it 
I was  an  act  of  usurpation  for  the  Congress  of  the  i 
| United  States  to  attempt  to  adjudicate  the  mean- 
j ing  of  that  territorial  bill ; that  the  question  what 
its  true  intent  and  meaning  was  after  it  passed, 

I belonged  to  the  courts,  and  not  to  the  Senate  or 
House  of  Representatives:  and  the  attempt  of 
I Congress  thus  to  expound  it  was  an  act  of  usur- 
j pation.  To  prove  that  such  was  the  case,  I will 


ask  to  have  read  brief  extracts  from  various 
speeches  which  I have  collected,  showing  the 
grounds  on  which  the  Trumbull  amendment  was 
opposed.  I will  remark,  that  no  man  intimated, 
pending  that  debate,  that  tbe  Trumbull  amend- 
ment did  not  contain  the  true  meaning  of  the 
bill;  hut  they  said,  we  will  not  by  act  of  Con- 
gress attempt  to  expound  a territorial  act. 

Mr.  PUGH  read  as  follows: 

‘‘  Mr  Cass  said  : Now.  in  respect  to  myself.  I suppose  tha 
Senare  knows  cle-trly  my  views.  I believe  the  original  act  gave 
the  Territorial  Legislature  of  Kansas  full  power  to  exclude  or 
allow  slavery  **  * * * * “ This  being 

my  vi-*w.  I shall  vote  against  the  amendment. 

“ Mr.  Douglas  said  : The  reading  of  the  amendment  in- 
clines my  mind  to  the  belief  that,  in  its  legal  effect,  it  is  pre- 
c sely  the  same  with  the  original  act.  and  almost,  rn  tbe  words 
of  that  act.  Hence,  I should  have  no  hesitancy  in  voting  for 
it.  except  that  it  is  purring' on  this  hill  a matter  that  does  uot 
belong  to  it.**  ****** 

“Mr.  Bigler  sail  : Now.  sir.  ] am  not  prepared  to  say 
what  the  intention  of  the  Congress  of  Id-54  was,  hecanse  I was 
no'  a member  of  that  Congress.  I will  not  vote  on  this  amend- 
ment. because  T should  not  know  rhat  my  vote  was  expressing 
the  truth.  I agree,  too.  with  rhe  Senaror  ‘-:om  Michigan  [Mr. 
Cass]  and  the  Senator  from  Illinois.  [Mr.  Douglas. j that  this 
is  substantially  the  law  as  it  now  exists.** 

“ Mr.  Toccey  said:  Now.  I object  to  th:s  amendment  as 
5cp?riInoas.  negatory;  worse  then  that,  as  giving  grounds  for 
mis-epresentarion.  It  leaves  the  subject  precisely  where  it  is  left 
in  the  Kansas  Nebraska  bill.*’  * * * * 

“Mr  Bayard  said  : T have  no  objection  to  the  amendment 
proposed  by  the  honorable  Senator  from  Illinois,  [\Ir.  Trum- 
bull.] which  to  me  would  be  perfectly  sufficient,  independent 
of  any  other  : and  that  is.  it  is  nothin*  more  or  less  than  an 
attempt  to  rive  a judicial  exposition  by  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States  to  the  Constitution  ; and  I hold  that  they  have 
no  right  to  usurp  judicial  power." 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  I will  ask  the  reading  of  the 
vote  on  the  reasons  assigned  in  debate  for  giving 
the  vote. 

Mr.  PUGH  read  as  follows: 

tl  The  question  being  taken  by  yeas  and  nays  on  the  amend- 
ment. resulted — yeas  I J . riavs3€,  as  fol  tows:  ® 

“ Yeas — Messrs.  Allen,  Beil  of  New  Hampshire.  Collamer, 
D : k??.  Fessenden.  Foote,  Foster,  Hide,  Reward,  Trumbull, 
and  Wade — 1 1. 

“Nays — Messrs.  Adams,  Bayard.  Benjamin.  Bggs.  Bigler, 
Bright,  Brodheat.  Brown.  Cass.  Clay,  Crittenden.  Dodge, 
Douglas.  Evans  Fitzpatrick.  Geyer,  Hunter  Iverson.  Johnson, 
J mes  of  Iowa.  Mallory.  Mason  Prau.  Pugh  Re  ’.  Sebastian, 
i Slidell,  Stuart  Thompson  of  Kentucky,  Toombs,  Toncey, 

I Weller,  Wright,  and  Yulee — 34. 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  Thus  it  appears  from  the 
! record  that  all  who  voted  for  the  Trumbull  amend- 
ment declared  by  their  votes  that  it  was  the  true 
I intent  and  meaning  of  the  act  not  to  legislate 
I slaverv  into  a Territory  or  out  of  it,  bet  to  leave 
i the  people  thereof  to  do  as  they  pleased,  subject 
j to  the  Constitution.  It  appears  from  the  debates, 
i however,  that  all  who  voted  against  it  assigned 
| as  a reason  for  the  negative  vote  either  that  it  was 
; irrelevant,  or  that  it  was  a usurpation  of  judicial 
j power;  but  no  one  of  them  intimated  or  pretended 
i it  was  not  a true  explanation  of  the  bill.  Mr. 

| Bayard  said  in  his  remarks  that — 

j l'  It  is  nothing  more  or  less  than  attempt  to  g:ve  a judi- 
cial exposition,  by  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  to  the 
: Constitution  : aud  I hold  that  they  have  no  right  to  usurp  ju- 
dicial power.” 

Now  what  act  was  it  that  was  to  he  a usurpa- 
tion of  judicial  power  ? It  was  the  proposition  of 
Cougress  to  declare  that,  under  the  Nebraska  bill, 
and  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  the 
people  of  the  Territory  had  the  power  to  intro- 
duce or  exclude  slavery.  Mr.  Bayard  said  that 
was  an  act  of  usurpation,  an  act  beyond  the  con- 


20 


stitutional  authority  of  the  Senate;  and  yet  we 
have  resolutions  now  under  debate,  by  which  the 
Senate  is  called  upon  to  adjudicate  that  identical 
question.  The  resolutions  on  j’our  table  provide 
that  neither  Congress  nor  a Territorial  Legisla- 
ture have  a right  to  exclude  slavery  from  a Ter- 
ritory. That  is  the  substance  of  them.  The 
object  of  these  resolutions  is  to  ask  the  Senate  to 
decide  this  very  judicial  question,  which  Mr. 
Bayard,  in  1856,  denounced  as  beyond  your  con- 
stitutional authority  to  do.  He  denounced  it  as 
an  act  of  attempted  usurpation,  and  every  one  of 
you  stood  here  silent  and  heard  Mr.  Bayard  give 
that  denunciation  to  the  proposition  to  expound 
the  meaning  of  the  Constitution  on  this  question 
by  an  act  of  the  Senate.  You  are  now  called 
upon  by  these  resolutions  to  perform  that  very 
act  of  usurpation,  and  decide  that  very  judicial 
question  which,  by  the  Kansas-Nebraska  act,  was 
to  be  referred  to  the  courts  and  banished  from 
Congress  forever;  and  which  you  pledged  your- 
selves by  that  act  never  to  decide  in  Congress. 
There  is  the  record.  I hold  you  to  your  pledges 
that  you  will  leave  this  question  to  the  courts, 
where  the  Constitution  leaves  it,  where  vou 
agreed  to  leave  it,  and  banish  it  from  the  Halls 
of  Congress,  as  you  agreed  to  banish  it,  forever. 

The  Senator  from  Virginia.  (Mr.  Hunter,)  it 
will  be  remembered,  in  the  extract  that  I read 
yesterday,  declared  that  the  understanding  of  the 
Nebraska  bill  was  that  one  point  was  referred  to 
courts,  and  that  was  the  extent  of  the  limitations 
of  the  Constitution  on  the  authority  of  a Terri- 
torial Legislature.  That  was  the  point,  the  only 
point  that  was  agreed  to  bi  left  to  the  courts. 
The  Senator  from  Virginia  not  only  made  that 
speech  in  1S54  on  the'  Nebraska  bill  when  it  was 
pending,  but  last  year,  when  a debate  arose  be- 
tween the  Senator  from  Mississippi  (Mr.  Brown) 
and  myself,  on  the  23d  of  February,  the  Senator 
from  Virginia  arose  and  made  an  explanation,  and 
quoted  that  very  extract  as  a true  exposition  of 
the  meaning  of  the  bill,  and  reaffirmed  it  as  his 
existing  sentiments.  Now  the  Senate  is  called 
upon,  in  violation  of  the  meaning  and  pledges  of 
the  Nebraska  act,  as  defined  by  the  Senator  from 
Virginia,  to  decide  that  very  question  by  resolu- 
tions of  the  Senate,  which  was  to  be  referred  to 
the  courts  and  banished  from  Congress  forever. 
I submit  whether  this  is  carrying  out  the  true  in- 
tent and  meaning  of  that  act.  I submit  whether 
this  is  banishing  the  subject  from  the  Halls  of 
Congress ; whether  it  is  referring  it  to  the  people 
immediately  interested  in  it,  subject  to  the  limita- 
tions of  the  Constitution,  and  leaving  the  court 
to  ascertain  the  extent  of  those  limitations. 

In  the  debate  growing  out  of  this  Toombs  bill, 
my  colleague  put  the  question  to  me  after  it  had 
been  answered  over  and  over  again  in  previous 
speeches,  whether  or  not  a Territorial  Legislature 
had  the  power  to  exclude  slavery.  lie  had  heard 
my  opinion  on  that  question  over  and  over  again. 
I did  not  choose  to  answer  a question  that  had 
been  so  often  responded  to,  but  referred  him  to 
the  judiciary  to  ascertain  whether  the  power  ex- 
isted. I believe  the  power  existed ; others  be- 
lieved otherwise  ; we  agreed  to  differ;  we  agreed 
to  refer  it  to  the  judiciary ; we  agreed  to  abide  by 


the  politic 
with  s 


is  an  e: 
ft 


judiig  1 
comprcn 


(Jebrash 
the  ft 


jaesti 
of  D 
Mr.  FOG 


itree 


The  scope 
doubt. 


ireof  peHec: 

lions  io  thei 
United  Si 
The  mea 
attack 
at  it  constit 
(ally  destitt 
itimagio 
ante,  whet 

ann3ctol 
ere  were  m 
lacbtotbc 
enacltnei 
denounce 
niplele  it 
aied  no  t: 
jmselvs.  i 
Ul 


their  decision;  and  I,  true  to  my  agreeme 
referred  my  colleague  to  the  courts  to  find  . 
whether  the  power  existed  or  not.  The  fact  t. 

I referred  him  to  the  courts  has  been  cited  as  t 
dence  that  I did  not  think  individually  that 
power  existed  in  a Territorial  Legislature.  Ai  e 
the  evidences  1 produced  yesterday,  and  the 
bate  just  read  upon  the  Trumbull  amendme 
no  man  who  was  an  actor  in  those  scenes  has 
excuse  to  be  at  a loss  as  to  what  my  opinion  w 
But  it  was  not  my  opinion  that  was  to  govern 
was  the  opinion  of  the  courton  the  question  arisi 
under  a territorial  law  after  the  territory  shoi 
have  passed  a law  upon  the  subject.  Bear 
mind  that  the  report  introducing  the  bill  was  tl 
these  questions  touching  the  right  of  property 
slaves  were  referred  to  the  local  courts,  to 
territorial  courts,  with  a right  of  appeal  to 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States.  When  tL 
case  shall  arise,  and  the  court  shall  pronounce 
judgment,  it  will  be  binding  on  me,  oil  you, 
and  on  every  good  citizen.  It  must  be  carri 
out  in  good  fa"ith;  and  all  the  power  of  this  Go 
ernment — the  Army,  the  Navy,  and  the  militia- 
all  that  we  have — must  be  exerted  to  carry 
decision  into  effect  in  good  faith,  if  there  be  resis 
ance.  Do  not  bring  the  question  back  here 
Congress  to  review  the  decision  of  the  court, 
for  Congress  to  explain  the  decision  of  the  co 
The  court  is  competent  to  construe  its  own  dec' 
siuns,  and  issue  its  own  decrees  to  carry  its  dec 
sions  into  effect. 

We  are  told  that  the  court  has  already  decide 
the  question.  If  so,  there  is  an  end  of  the  co 
troversy.  You  agreed  to  abide  by  it ; I did. 
it  has  decided  it,  let  the  decision  go  into  effecl*'®11 
there  is  an  end  of  it ; what  are  we  quarrelin 
about?  Will  resolutions  of  the  Senate  give 
additional  authority  to  the  decision  of  the 
preme  Court  of  the  United  States  ? Does  it  nee 
an  indorsement  by  the  Charleston  convention 
give  it  validity  ? If  the  decision  is  made,  it  is  th  at  Pi 
law  of  the  land,  and  we  are  all  bound  by  it.  1 it, spei 
the  decision  is  not  made,  then  what  right  hav  populs 
you  to  pass  resolutions  here  prejudging  the  que:  le  “in< 
tion,  with  a view  of  influencing  the  views  of  th  k woi 
court?  If  there  is  a dispute  as  to  the  true intei iitwe; 
pretation  and  meaning  of  the  decision  of  the  corn  feed 
who  can  settle  the  true  construction  except  th  id, as 
court  itself,  when  it  arises  in  another  case?  Ca:  (kip’ 
you  determine  by  resolutions  here  what  the  dc  ime-t 
cision  of  the  court  is,  or  what  it  ought  to  be,  o incip: 
what  it  will  be?  It  belongs  to  that  tribunal.  Th  - reigot 
Constitution  has  wisely  separated  the  politica  i thos 
from  the  judicial  department  of  the  Government  itkel 
The  Constitution  has  wisely  made  the  courts  f Hen 
coordinate  branch  of  the  Government;  as  inde  imar! 
pendent  of  us  as  we  are  of  them.  Sir,  you  hav<  rraig 
no  right  to  instruct  that  court  how  they  shal  kith 
decide  this  question  in  dispute.  You  have  nc  fid  tl 
right  to  define  their  decision  for  them.  Wber  lab 
that  decision  is  made,  they  will  issue  the  propel  ie  p 
process  for  carrying  it  into  effect ; and  the  Exe-  itimi 
cutive  is  clothed  with  the  Army,  the  Navy,  and  loci 
the  militia,  the  whole  power  of  the  Government,  iere 
to  execute  that  decree.  All  I ask,  therefore,  ol  base 
you  is  Don-intervention;  hands  off.  In  the  lan- uk 
guage  of  the  Georgia  resolutions,  let  the  subject 


jeaclior 
;akened  t 
ciple  of 
pleof  tl 
It  ii  no 
odes  the 
islii 

entisexi 


ty.  The 
a r socei 
telligeno 
illot  box 


1 Mr.Di 


21 


banished  forever  from  the  Halls  of  Congress 
the  political  arena,  and  referred  to  the  Terri- 
■ies,  with  a right  of  appeal  to  the  courts  ; and 
-ere  is  an  end  to  the  controversy. 

Having  shown  conclusively  what  the  under- 
nding  of  Congress  was  upon  this  question  of 
3 3 compromise  measures  of  1850,  and  the  Kan- 
s-Nebraska  bill,  I will  proceed  now  to  show 
w the  President  of  the  United  States  who 
■ned  the  bill  understood  it.  I will  ask  to  have 
ad  an  extract  irom  the  message  of  President 
erce  of  December,  1855. 

AMr.  PUGH  read,  as  follows: 

‘ The  scope  and  effect  of  the  language  of  repeal  were  not 
. in  doubt.  It  was  declared,  in  terms,  to  be  the  * true  intent 
bl  meaning  of  this  act  not  lo  legislate  slavery  into  any  Terri- 
y or  State,  nor  exclude  it  therefrom,  but  to  leave  the  people 
reof  perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic  insti- 
'^ions  in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution  of 
United  States.’ 

• The  measure  could  not  be  withstood  upon  its  merits  alone. 

; was  attacked  with  violence,  on  the  false  or  delusive  pretext 
cl  it  it  constituted  a breach  of  faith.  Never  was  objection  more 
erly  destitute  of  substantial  justification.  When,  before, 

.3  it  imagined  b3T  sensible  men,  that  a regulative  or  declarative 
'tute,  whether  enacted  ten  or  forty  years  ago,  is  irrepealable; 
riit  an  act  of  Congress  is  above  the  Constitution  ? If,  indeed, 
^1‘re  were  in  the  facts  any  cause  to  impute  bad  faith,  it  would 
Jach  to  those  only  who  have  never  ceased,  from  the  time  of 
enactment  of  the  restrictive  provision  to  the  present  day, 
^denounce  and  condemn  it;  who  have  constantly  refused  to 
frpnplete  it  by  needful  supplementary  legislation  ; who  have 
Itred  no  exertion  to  deprive  it  of  moral  force;  who  have 
2>mselves.  again  and  again,  attempted  its  repeal  by  the  enact- 
nt  of  incompatible  provisions;  and  who,  by  the  inevita- 
reacrionary  effect  of  their  own  violence  on  the  subject, 
akened  the  country  to  perception  of  the  true  constitutional 
nciple  of  leaving  the  matter  involved  to  the  discretion  of  the 
ople  of  the  respective  existing  or  incipient  States.” 

“ It  is  not  pretented  that  this  principle,  or  any  other,  pre- 
. ides  the  possibility  of  evils  in  practice,  disturbed  as  political 
nion  is  liable  to  be  by  human  passions.  No  form  of  govern- 
i >nt  is  exempt  from  inconveniences  ; but  in  this  case  they  are 
result  of  the  abuse,  and  not  of  the  legitimate  exercise,  of 
powers  reserved  or  conferred  in  the  organization  of  a Terri- 
•.  They  are  not  to  be  charged  to  the  great  principle  of  pup- 
ir  sovereignty ; on  the  contrary,  they  disappear  before  the 
elligence  and  patriotism  of  the  people,  exerting  through  the 
, Hot  box  their  peaceful  and  silent  but  irresistible  power.” 

: Mr.  DOUGLAS.  There  you  will  find  thatPresi- 
i :nt  Pierce,  who  signed  the  Kansas-Nebraska 
bt,  speaks  of  it  as  adopting  the  great  principle  of 
>opular  sovereignty”  in  the  States,  and  also  in 
■SLe  “incipient”  States.  What  did  he  mean  by 
e word  “incipient”  States?  Not  the  States 
at  were  then  in  the  Union.  He  unquestionably 
ferred  to  the  Territories  as  “ incipient  States," 
■..fid,  as  such,  were  entitled  to  the  benefits  of  the 
'ineiples  of  self-government  in  respect  to  their 
>>mestic  concerns.  Hence  you  find  the  word 
incipient”  States,  and  the  words  “popular  sov- 
eignty,”  as  embracing  the  rights  of  the  people 
those  incipient  States,  or  Territories,  as  we  are 
the  habit  of  designating  them. 

Here  I must  be  permitted  to  comment  upon  a 
mark  of  the  Senator  from  Mississippi,  in  his 
•raignment  of  this  doctrine  of  non-intervention, 
hich  he  chose  to  call  squatter  sovereignty.  He 
id  that  this  doctrine  had  its  first  trial  on  the 
ains  of  Kansas;  that  it  bore  its  first  fruits  on 
le  plains  of  Kansas;  and  he  described  its  le- 
timate  fruits  as  resulting  in  anarchy,  violence, 
.oodshed,  and  every  imaginable  evil.  President 
ierce,  in  this  message,  says  that  those  acts  were 
mses  of  the  principle  of  popular  sovereignty, 
violation  of  the  principle  of  the  act;  and  that 


the  principle  itself  is  by  no  means  responsible 
for  those  abuses.  I answer  that  allegation  of  the 
Senator  from  Mississippi  by  the  authority  of  his 
own  chief,  the  President  of  the  United  States, 
under  whom  he  held  the  high  and  distinguished 
office  of  Secretary  of  War.  Nor  is  it  improper 
here  for  me  to  express  my  amazement  that  the 
Senator  from  Mississippi  would  cite  the  abuses, 
the  acts  of  violence,  and  of  fraud,  that  occurred 
in  violation  of  this  principle  under  the  Adminis- 
tration of  which  he  was  a ruling  spirit,  as  evi- 
dences that  the  principle  that  brought  that  Ad- 
ministration into  existence  was  a vicious  and  dan- 
gerous principle.  I had  supposed  that  the  Sena- 
tor from  Mississippi  had  given  in  his  adhesion  to 
this  doctrine  of  non-intervention.  I had  sup- 
posed that  he  looked  with  pleasure  upon  the  pas- 
sage of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  act.  I had  sup- 
posed that  he  considered  that  as  a great  measure 
of  relief  to  the  southern  States  of  this  Union, 
and  that  he  would  have  been  the  first  to  defend 
it,  as  in  duty  bound,  having  held  office  under  the 
Administration  that  glories  in  the  passage  of  the 
act.  Now  we  find  he  takes  pleasure  in  citing 
those  very  abuses  in  justification  of  his  course 
when  he  fought  the  principle,  and  as  a verifica- 
tion of  what  he  told  us  before  the  southern  States 
agreed  to  acquiesce  in  the  principle.  I was  not 
prepared  to  hear  this  from  the  gentleman  from 
Mississippi. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  You  do  not  pretend  to  quote  it? 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  I do  not  pretend  to  quote 
the  language.  I pretend  only  to  say  that,  in  sub- 
stance, he  did  declare  that  this  principle  had  its 
first  trial  on  the  plains  of  Kansas,  and  bore  its 
first  fruits  upon  the  plains  of  Kansas ; that  it  was 
accompanied  with  unmitigated  and  untold  evils, 
and  produced  all  sorts  of  mischief ; and  the  in- 
ference was  that  these  results  justified  him  in  his 
original  opposition  to  the  principle. 

I now  pass  to  the  next  chapter  in  the  history 
of  this  principle  of  non-intervention,  which  you 
will  find  in  the  proceedings  of  the  national  con- 
vention, held  at  Cincinnati,  in  1856.  You  all 
remember  that  Alabama  sent  her  delegates  to 
Cincinnati,  demanding  that  the  usages  of  the 
party  should  be  reversed,  and  that  a platform 
should  be  first  made,  and  then  furnishing  the  ul- 
timatum which,  if  not  acceded  to,  must  be  the 
cause  for  an  instant  withdrawal  of  the  Alabama 
delegates  from  that  convention.  That  ultimatum 
was  that  the  convention,  in  its  platform,  should 
recognize  the  principle  of  non  intervention  by 
Congress  with  slavery  in  the  Territories.  The 
convention  yielded  to  the  Alabama  ultimatum. 
The  convention  incorporated  that  principle  into 
the  platform  in  language  so  explicit  that  no  one 
can  misunderstand  it.  I ask  to  have  so  much  of 
the  Cincinnati  platform  read  as  announced  this 
doctrine  of  non-intervention. 

Mr.  PUGH  read,  as  follows: 

‘‘  The  American  Democracy  recognize  and  adopt  the  prin- 
ciples contained  in  the  organic  laws  establishing  the  Territories 
of  Kansas  and  Nebraska,  as  embodying  the  only  sound  and 
safe  solution  of  the  ‘ slavery  question,’  upon  which  the  great 
national  idea  of  the  people  of  this  whole  country  can  repose  in 
its  determined  conservatism  of  the  Union — non-interfer- 
ence by  Congress  with  slavery  in  the  State  and 
Territory,  or  in  the  District  of  Columbia. 


22 


“That  tin's  was  the  basis  of  the  compromise  of  1850,  con 
firmed  by  both  the  Democratic  and  Whiff  parties  in  national 
convention,  ratified  by  the  people  in  the  election  of  185*2,  and 
rightly  applied  to  the  organization  of  Territories  in  1854. 

That  by  the  uniform  application  of  this  Democratic  prin- 
ciple to  the  organization  of  Teriitories.  and  to  the  admission  of 
new  States,  with  or  without  domestic  slavery,  as  they  may 
elect— -t  he  equal  lights  of  all  the  States  will  be  preserved  intact — 
the  original  compacts  of  the  Constitution  maintained  inviolate — 
and  the  perpetuity  and  expansion  of  this  Union  insured  to  its 
utmost  capacity  ol  embracing,  in  peace  and  harmony,  every 
future  State  that  may  he  constipated  or  annexed,  with  a repub- 
lican form  of  government.” 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  There  it  will  be  found  that 
the  Democratic  party  affirmed,  at  Cincinnati,  in 
language  too  explicit  to  admit  of  any  possible 
misconstruction,  the  doctrine  of  non-intervention 
by  Congress  with  slavery  in  the  States  or  Terri- 
tories, and  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  I only 
call  attention  to  it  now  so  far  as  relates  to  non- 
intervention in  the  Territories.  The  platform  also 
declared  that  the  same  principle  of  non-interven- 
tion was  affirmed  by  both  parties  at  Baltimore,  in 
1852  ; showing  that,  the  Democratic  party  under- 
stood in  1856  that  the  convention  which  nomi- 
nated General  Pierce — upon  which  nomination 
General  Pierce  was  elected  President — did  affirm 
this  doctrine  of  non-intervention.  It  declared 
that  both  parties  (Whig  and  Democratic)  had 
affirmed  the  doctrine.  " It  declared,  also,  that 
this  principle  was  correctly  applied  in  the  Kan 
sas-Nebraska  bill ; and  that  it  was  the  great  con- 
servative principle  upon  which  alone  the  peace 
and  perpetuity  of  this  Union  could  he  sustained. 

I wish  it  also  to  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  plat- 
form of  principles  was  declared  at  Cincinnati 
unanimously,  the  votes  being  taken  by  States,  and 
every  delegation,  from  every  State  in  the  Union, 
was  unanimous  in  its  vote  in  favor  of  the  princi- 
ple. There  was  no'  one  man  in  Mississippi  then 
protesting  against  it;  no  one  man  in  Alabama 
protesting  against  it;  no  one  man  in  South  Caro- 
lina protesting  against  it;  none  in  Georgia;  none 
in  any  southern  State  of  this  Union.  Are  we 
now  to  be  told  that  a platform  adopted  by  the 
unanimous  vote  of  every  delegation,  from  every 
State  in  the  Union,  in  1856,  is  so  unsound  and  so 
rotten  fonr  years  after,  as  to  justify  the  very 
States  who  dictated  it  then  in  breaking  up  the 
party,  because  we  insist  upon  adhering  to  it  now? 

But,  sir,  not  only  did  the  party  unanimously 
affirm  this  doctrine  in  1856,  but  your  candidates 
nominated  at  that  time  accepted  the  nomination 
on  that  platform,  with  a construction  which  they 
then  put  upon  it  for  themselves.  I will  now 
show  you  that  they  then  put  upon  that  platform 
the  identical  construction  which  I have  ever 
placed  upon  it.  I ask  to  have  read  an  extract 
from  the  letter  of  acceptance  of  Mr.  Buchanan, 
on  the  16th  of  .Tune,  1856. 

Mr.  PUGH  read,  as  follows: 

“The  agitation  on  the  question  of  domestic  slavery  has 
too  long  distracted  and  divided  the  people  of  this  Union, 
and  alienated  their  affections  from  each  other.  This  agi- 
tation has  assumed  many  forms  since  its  commencement, 
but  it  now  seems  to  be  directed  chiefly  to  the  Territories; 
and  judging  from  its  present  character,  I think  we  may 
safely  anticipate  that  it  is  rapidly  approaching  ‘a  finality.’ 
The  recent  legislation  of  Congress  respecting  domestic 
slavery,  derived,  as  it  has  been,  from  the  original  and  pure 
fountain  of  legitimate  political  power,  the  will  of  the  ma- 
jority, promises  ere  long  to  allay  the  dangerous  excite- 
ment. This  legislation  is  founded  upon  principles  as  an- 


cient as  free  government  itself;  and  in  accordanci 
them  has  simply  declared  that  the  people  of  a Ter 
like  those  of  a State,  shall  decide  for  themselves  w) 
slavery  shall  or  shall  not  exist  within  their  limits.” 


veil 


Mr.  DOUGLAS.  Mr.  Buchanan  not  onl 
cepted  the  Cincinnati  platform,  but  he  was 
enough  to  tell  the  people  of  the  United  S 
what  it  meant,  and  that  it  meant  that  the  p, 
of  a Territory,  like  those  of  a State,  shoult 
cide  for  themselves  whether  slavery  short! 
should  not  exist  within  their  limits.  The  11 
nothing  equivocal  in  this  language.  It  is  sc 
ter  sovereignty  in  its  broadest  sense,  as  the 
ator  from  Mississippi  uses  that  term.  The  p< 
of  a Territory,  like  those  of  a State,  shall  d 
for  themselves  whether  slavery  shall  exist  or 
Mr.  Buchanan  told  the  people  that  slavery  c 
not  exist  in  a Territory  unless  the  people 
Territory  said  so;  it  should  exist  if  they  sai 
and  not  otherwise.  Mr.  Buchanan  was  ek 
on  that  construction  of  the  platform.  I dc 
ask  that  you  shall  now  give  it  that’  construe 
I Only  ask  that  you  readopt  the  platform, 
let  it  construe  itself.  But  Mr.  Buchanan 
perfectly  sound  on  that  platform  in  1856,  wi  ii 
construction  identical  with  that  which  is 
denounced  as  a heresy.  The  distinguished 
tleman  who  was  nominated  and  elected 
President  on  the  same  ticket  with  Mr.  Bucha 
understood  the  platform  in  the  same  way 
Mr.  Buchanan  did.  After  his  nomination  at 
cinnati,  he  returned  to  his  home  in  Lexing 
and  his  neighbors  assembled,  as  might  have  t 
expected,  where  they  had  such  devotion  to  t 
distinguished  fellow-citizen,  and  congratul 
him  on  his  good  fortune  in  receiving  the  n< 
nation,  and  Mr.  Breckinridge,  in  reply  to 
congratulation,  made  them  a speech,  which 
published  at  the  time,  from  which  I will  prei1 
an  extract,  showing  you  how  he  understood 
Kansas-Nebraska  bill  and  the  Cincinnati 
form. 

Mr.  PUGH  read  as  follows: 


id  the 
luting. 


ipeecl 
iver  t 


KB  »' 

liras 


and 
fhe  vo 


land 


IV!,  ■ 


lory  o 
lelliei 


IWa 

ill*! 


when 

lemoe 


r<  live 
n heir 


“Upon  the  distracting  question  of  domestic  slavery, 
posiiion  is  clear.  The  whole  power  oi*  the  Democratic  o 
nation  is  pledged  to  the  following  propositions  : that  Co 
shall  not  intervene  upon  this  subject  in  the  States,  in  the 
tories,  or  in  the  District  of  Columbia;  that  the  people  of 
Territory  shall  determine  the  question  for  themselves,  an 
admitted  into  the  Union  upon  a footing  of  perfect  equality 
the  original  States,  without  discrimination  on  account  of 
allowance  or  prohibition  of  slavery.” 

Mr.  DOUGDAS.  It  seems  that  the  Dei 
cratic  party,  in  its  whole  organization, 
pledged  to  the  proposition  of  non-intervent 
by  Congress,  and  referring  the  question  to 
people  of  the  Territories.  That  is  the  wa; 
understand  it.  I stand  upon  that  platform  n< 
[ have  great  difficulty  with  my  political  frie: 
in  harmonizing  upon  platforms,  and  have 
dered  them  various  propositions.  I have 
dered  them  the  Florida  platform  of  1847, 
they  would  not  take  it;  the  Georgia  pi atforrr 
1854,  and  they  would  not  take  it;  the  Alaba 
ultimatum  of  1856,  and  they  would  not  take 
I tender  them  now  Mr.  Buchanan’s  letter  of 
ceptance  in  1S56;  let  it  construe  itself,  and 
if  we  cannot  harmonize  on  that;  or  I tender 
Breckinridge's  speech  of  acceptance  in  Lexit 
ton,  in  1856,  and  let  it  construe  itself.  I will 


Mr 


qut 


says 
3 ill 


rail 


peo; 

sof 


it  c 


nan. 
'•  Did 


y h 


an  i or  cross  a t.  Gentlemen,  will  you  take 
: own  language  wlien  you  accepted  and  con- 
i'’ 'd  the  platform  ? I am  willing  to  be  aeeorn- 
viting.  I do  not  insist  on  a platform  from 
. peeekes  or  my  writings.  I can  pick  one  up 
ver  the  Senate,  all  over  the  country,  from 
i speeches  and  writings  of  those  who  now  ar- 
l me  as  not  being  sound  on  the  slavery  ques- 
s (Applause  in  the  galleries.) 

: ~en  after  the  election  in  1856,  the  same  prin- 
:;i  was  emphatically  announced  and  affirmed; 
' n Mr.  Buchanan’s  inaugural  address,  he  de- 
#!d: 

I have  recently  passed  through  a presidential  contest,  in 
i the  passions  of  our  fellow  citizens  were  excited  to  the 
ft  degree  by  questions  of  deep  a Ad  vital  importance  ; but 
the  people  proclaimed  their  will,  the  tempest  at  once  sub- 
7 and  all  was  calm. 

'lie  voice  of  the  majority,  speaking  in  the  manner  pre 
d by  the  Constitution,  was  heard,  aud  instant  submission 
red.  Our  own  country  could  alone  have  exhibited  so 
, and  striking  a spectacle  of  the  capacity  of  man  for  self- 
nment. 

VThat  a happy  conception,  then,  was  it  for  Congress  to  ap 
his  simple  rule — that  the  will  of  the  majority  shall  govern — 

; * settlement  of  the  question  of  domestic  slavery  in  the 
cries!  Congress  is  neither  to  ‘legislate  slavery  into  any 
ory  or  State,  nor  to  exclude  it  therefrom  ; but  to  leave  the 
b thereof  perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic 
irions  in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution 
t United  States.’  As  a natural  consequence,  Congress 
so  prescribed  that,  when  the  Territory  of  Kansas  shall  be 
ted  as  a State,  ‘it  shall  be  received  into  the  Union,  with 
:hoot  slavery,  as  their  constitution  may  prescribe  at  the 
of  iberr  admission.’ 

i difference  of  opinion  has  arisen  in  regard  to  the  point  of 
when  the  people  of  a Territory  shall  decide  this  question 
emselves.  This  is  happily  a matter  of  but  little  practical 
dance.  ” 

What  a happy  conception,”  be  says,  “ for 
gresS  to  apply  this  simple  rule — that  the  will 
majority  shall  govern — to  the  settlement  of 
question  of  domestic  slavery  in  the  Territo- 
I”  And,  having  applied  it  to  the  Territories, 
•ays,  that,  “as  a natural  consequence,  Con- 
s has  prescribed  that  when  the  Territory  of 
sas  shall  be  admitted  as  a State,  it  shall  he 
ived  into  the  Union,  wTith  or  without  slavery, 
leir  constitution  may  prescribe  at  the  time  of 
r admission!”  So  it  seems  that  the  right  of 
people  to  decide  the  slavery  question  at  the 
> of  admission  was  “a  natural  consequence” 
he  right  of  the  people  to  decide  the  same 
;tion  in  their  territorial  condition.  “The 
t of  time”  when  the  people  of  a Territory 
dd  decide  the  slavery  question  was  deemed 
but  little  practical  importance”  by  Mr.  Bu- 
lan.  Yet  the  very  point  of  time  which  was 
ned  of  little  practical  importance,  is  now 
?d  by  his  professed  friends  as  sufficient  for 
iking  up  the  Democratic  party,  and  endan- 
ng  the  existence  of  the  Union! 
speak  of  these  things  with  entire  respect.  I 
mt  bring  them  up  for  the  purpose  of  eondem- 
on,  or  to  place  any  man  in  a false  position, 
oese  geDtlemen  stand  now  where  they  did  in 
5,  I am  with  them.  If  they  do  not,  the  ques- 
arises,  who  has  changed?  If  they  have 
aged,  I do  not  complain  of  them  for  it.  If 
r have  had  new  light,  if  they  have  studied 
subject  more  maturely,  and  have  honestly 
e to  the  conclusion  that  they  were  then  in 
r,  they  were  bound  as  honest  men  to  change, 
if  that  be  the  case,  I think  I have  the  right 


to  ask  that  they  will  furnish  me  with  those  argu- 
ments and  reasons  which  induced  the  change  in 
their  minds,  in  order  that  I may  correct  my  er- 
rors too,  if  indeed  I am  in  error.  I do  not  think 
there  is  any  wisdom  in  the  declaration  ths^;  you 
have  never  changed  an  opinion.  While  I claim 
a very  consistent  record  as  a public  man,  I have 
often  had  occasion  to  say  that  I have  modified 
my  opinions  on  many  questions,  and  take  more 
pleasure  iu  retracting  an  error  than  in  persever- 
ing in  it.  All  I ask  is,  if  it  be  true  that  gentle- 
men have  taken  a step  in  advance  or  a step  back- 
ward, that  they  will  excuse  me  for  not  following 
them  until  they  convince  me  that  they  ought  to 
have  taken  that  step. 

The  country  has  been  informed  that  I was  re- 
moved from  the  post  of  chairman  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  Territories,  iu  1858,  because  I uttered 
at  Freeport,  Illinois,  the  identical  sentiments 
contained  in  the  speeches  and  letters  of  accep- 
tance of  Mr.  Buchanan  and  Mr.  Breckinridge  in 
1856.  My  heresy  consisted  in  uttering  the  satne 
sentiment  then  that  the  Senator  from  Mississippi 
bears  testimony  that  I held  and  uttered  in  1850; 
that  it  has  been  shown  that  I uttered,  during  the 
debate  on  the  Kansas-Nebraska  hill,  in  1854,  and 
in  the  debates  of  1856,  and  which  I was  known 
to  have  held  for  many  years.  I do  not  complain 
of  my  removal  from  the  committee.  I acknowl- 
edge that,  if  it  be  true  that  my  opinions  were  so 
heretical,  that  I did  not  fairly  and  honestly  rep- 
resent the  sentiments  of  the  Senate  on  these 
great  questions,  it  was  right  to  displace  me,  and 
put  a man  there  who  did.  I have  no  complaints 
to  make.  But  when  you  displace  me  for  that 
reason,  do  not  charge  that  I have  changed,  when 
the  fact  is,  that  you  have  changed  your  own 
opinions.  You,  did  elect  me  chairman  of  that 
committee,  in  1847,  with  a knowledge  of  my 
J opinions.  You  re-elected  me  each  year  for  eleven 
years,  by  a unanimous  vote  in  caucus,  with  a full 
knowledge  of  those  opinions.  At  the  end  of 
eleven  years,  you  removed  me  for  holding  the 
identical  opinions  that  I held  when  you  had 
unanimously  selected  me.  I do  not  complain  of 
this;  hut  I do  think  that  fairness  requires  that 
the  facts  should  have  been  stated  truly ; and  you 
should  have  said,  “We  have  got  tired  of  this 
doctrine  of  non-intervention  ; it  does  not  work 
to  suit  U3 ; it  has  not  yielded  such  practical 
fruits  on  the  plains  of  Kansas  as  we  anticipated; 
we  have  concluded  to  abandon  it  all,  and  go 
back  to  the  old  doctrine  proclaimed  by  Yancey, 
at  Baltimore,  in  1S43,  and  rejected  by  the  con- 
vention by  an  almost  unanimous  vote.” 

Now,  sir,  there  is  a difference  of  opinion,  it 
seems,  on  this  question,  between  me  and  a ma- 
jority of  the  Democratic  Senators.  I regret  that 
difference.  It  would  have  afforded  me  sincere 
and  genuine  satisfaction  if  I could  have  continued 
to  hold  the  same  relations  on  this  question  that  I 
did  formerly.  It  was  painful  to  me  to  find  that 
this  difference  of  opinion  had  grown  up,  and  that 
they  had  determined  to  make  this  new  test  by 
which  my  orthodoxy  was  to  be  questioned,  and  I 
was  to  be  branded  as  a heretic.  While  I regret- 
ted that  determination  on  the  part  of  some  politi- 
cal friends  here,  I cannot  recognize,  and  do  not 


24 


now  recognize,  the  right  of  a caucus  of  the  Senate, 
or  of  the  House,  to  prescribe  new  tests  for  the 
Democratic  party.  Senators  are  not  chosen  for 
the  purpose  of  making  party  platforms.  That  is 
no  part  of  their  duty.  Under  our  political  sys- 
tem th^'e  has  grown  up  an  organization  known 
as  a national  convenlion,  composed  of  delegates 
elected  fresh  from  the  people,  to  assemble  once  in 
four  years  to  establish  a platform  for  the  party 
and  select  its  nominees.  The  Cincinnati  platform 
was  the  only  authoritative  exposition  of  Demo- 
cratic faith  until  the  Charleston  convention  met. 

I have  stood  firmly,  faithfully  by  the  Cincinnati 
platform,  and  have  looked  confidently  to  the 
Charleston  convention  to  find  it  reaffirmed.  You 
gentlemen  who  differ  with  me,  agreed  to  appeal 
to  Charleston  as  the  grand  council  that  should  de- 
cide all  differences  of  political  opinion  between 
you  and  me.  T agreed,  also,  to  look  to  the  Charles- 
ton convention  as  the  representatives  of  the  party 
assembled  from  every  State  in  the  Union,  and  af- 
ter great  deliberation,  three  days’  debate  in  com- 
mittee, and  a very  elaborate  and  able  debate  in 
full  convention,  the  party  determined,  by  an  over- 
whelming majority,  in  favor  of  the  readoption  of 
the  Cincinnati  platform. 

I have  told  you  all  the  time  during  the  exist- 
ence of  these  differences  of  opinion,  that  I was  in 
favor  of  the  Cincinnati  platform  without  the  dot- 
ting of  an  i,  or  the  crossing  of  a t.  The  Charles- 
ton convention  affirmed  the  same  platform.  I am 
no  longer  a heretic.  I am  no  longer  an  outlaw 
from  the  Democratic  party.  I am  no  longer  a 
rebel  against  the  Democratic  organization.  The 
Charleston  convention  repudiated  this  new  test, 
contained  in  the  Senate  caucus  resolutions,  by  a 
majority  of  twenty-seven,  and  affirmed  the  Cin- 
cinnati platform  in  lieu  of  it.  Then,  so  far  as  the 
platform  is  concerned,  I am  sustained  by  the  party 
— the  only  authority  on  earth  which,  according 
to  Democratic  usages,  can  determine  the  Demo- 
cratic creed.  The  question  now  is  whether  my 
friend  from  Mississippi  will  again  acquiesce  in 
the  decisions  of  his  party  upon  the  platform 
which  they  have  adopted,  or  is  he  going  to  retire 
from  the  party,  bolt  its  nominations,  break  it  up, 
because  the  party  has  concluded  not  to  change 
from  its  position  of  1856.  Are  my  friends  around 
me  here  going  to  * desert  the  party  because  the 
party  has  not  changed  as  suddenly  as  they  have? 

The  country  has  often  been  told  that  I and  my 
friends  in  Illinois  were  not  acting  in  harmony 
with  the  Democratic  organization.  We  have  said, 
in  reply  to  that  accusation,  “ We  will  appeal  to  the 
national  convention  at  Charleston  and  ascertain 
who  constitute  the  Democratic  party  in  Illinois, 
whether  it  be  the  regular  organization  that  sus- 
tains me,  or  the  Federal  officeholders  that  acted, 
with  the  Republicans,  against  me.”  The  Federal 
officeholders  sent  their  delegates  to  Charleston,  i 
The  regular  Democratic  organization,  known  as  I 
the  Douglas  organization — the  same  organization 
that  returned  me  to  the  Senate;  the  same  organi- 
zation that  beat  the  Republicans  and  the  Federal 
officeholders  combined  in  1858 — sent  their  dele- 
gates to  Charleston,  and  the  convention  proceed- 
ed with  great  deliberation  and  impartiality  and 
integrity  to  decide  between  them,  and  decided, 


by  a unanimous  vote,  that  the  Federal  officeho  ^ 
ers  of  Illinois  do  not  belong  to  the  Democra  non. 
party  — (laughter)  — rejected  them  by  a una  jy,  d 
mous  vote.  So  far,  therefore,  as  these  “natioi  |(j  pr0 
Democrats”  of  Illinois,  who,  in  order  to  carry  < Bjtii 
Democratic  principles,  sustained  the  Aboiiti  ollij 
candidates,  are. concerned,  the  party  has  una  Xj 
mouslv  decided,  at  Charleston,  that  they  do  i qj^] 
belong  to  the  party. 

The  party  decided  at  Charleston  also,  by  an  ^ 
jority  of  the  whole  electoral  college,  that  I w f,bj 
the  choice  of  the  Democratic  party  of  Ameri  L 
for  the  Presidency  of  the  United  States,  givi  al([ 
me  a majority  of  fifty  votes  over  all  the  oth  ^ 
candidates  combined  ; and  yet  my  Democracy  ;j$ , 
questioned.  (Laughter.)  So  far  as  I am  in<  ne'( 
vidually  concerned,  I want  no  further  or  high  se’c( 
indorsement.  I have  arraigned  r.o  man.  I ha  3y|, 
attempted  to  proscribe  no  man  for  differing  wi  ,jn| 
me  in  opinion.  I have  at  all  times  said  tha 
was  willing  to  appeal  to  the  grand  council  of  t !( |„ 
party  assembled  in  national  convention,  to  c ^ 
i cide  these  differences  of  opinion.  They  ha  )n| 
decided  them  ; decided  in  my  favor  on  all  poir  ,r|,j[ 
— the  platform,  the  organization,  and,  least  of  a ;ert 
the  individual.  That  is  the  least  of  all ; for  n ^ 
friends  who  know  me  best  know  that  I had  ! a'; 
personal  desire  or  wish  for  the  momination;  kno  ^ 

; that  I prefer  a seat  in  the  Senate  for  six  years  (ert 
being  President,  if  I could  have  the  nominati<  s, 
1 and  be  elected  by  acclamation ; and  know  th  ^ 
my  name  never  would  have  been  presented  afv 
Charleston,  except  for  the  attempt  to  proscril  { (( 
me  as  a heretic,  too  unsound  to  be  the  chairm; , 
of  a committee  of  this  body,  where  I have  he  , , 
a seat  for  so  many  years  without  a suspicion  res  ,(f 
ing  on  my  political  fidelity.  ,ltl 

I was  forced  to  allow  my  name  to  go  there  . )a|j 
self-defence;  and  I will  now  say  that  had  ar  ja, 
gentleman,  friend  or  foe,  received  a majority  |t 
that  convention  over  me,  the  lightning  wou  ,,i; 
have  carried  a message  withdrawing  my  nan 
from  the  convention.  I have  not  lust  enoua 
for  office  to  desire  to  be  the  nominee  against  tl  !e 
known  wishes  and  first  choice  of  a majority  ,£ 
my  party.  In  1852,  the  instant  Franklin  Pierrj 
had  a majority  vote,  the  telegraph  carried  m 
message  congratulating  him  as  the  choice  of  tl  ]B 
party;  and  it  was  read  in  the  convention  befo:  ^ 
the  vote  was  announced.  In  1856,  the  instai  y 
Mr.  Buchanan  received  a majority  vote,  theligh 
ning  carried  my  message  that  James  Buchanai  ^ 
having  received  a majority  of  the  votes  of  tl  i 
party,  in  my  opinion,  was  entitled  to  the  nom  i' 
nation,  and  that  I hoped  my  friends  would  gh  j 
him  the  requisite  two-thirds,  and  then  make  tl  )( 
vote  unanimous.  Sir,  I would  scorn  to  be  tb  ;» 
standard-bearer  of  my  party  when  I was  not  tb  11 
choice  of  the  party.  All  the  honors  that  a n; 
tional  convention  can  confer  are  embraced  in  th  ■< 
declaration  that  I am  the  first  choice  of  the  pa; 
as  their  standard-bearer,  repeated  on  fifty-seve  i 
ballots.  I ask  nothing  more.  The  party  wi  s 
go  on  and  do  what  its  own  interest  and  its  ow 
integrity  may  require. 

But,  sir,  I do  rejoice  that  this  good  old  Derm 
cratic  party,  the  only  organization  now  left  suff 
ciently  national  and  conservative  in  its  principle 


25 


d great  in  its  numbers  to  preserve  this  Union,  Legislators,  and  statesmen.  I have  no  time  to  enlarge,  but  to 
s determined  to  adhere  to  the  great  principle  ' " “* 

1 non-intervention  by  the  Federal  Government 
4 th  the  domestic  affairs  of  distant  Territories 


d provinces.  It  is  a pleasing  duty  to  me  to  de- 
Ld  this  glorious  old  party  against  those  who 
>uld  destroy  it  because  the  party  will  not ! 
~ mge  its  platform  to  suit  their  purposes.  The  j 


suggest  merely. 

In  haste,  yours,  &c.f  W.  L.  YANCEY. 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  That  letter,  it  is  due  to  Mr. 
Yancey  to  state,  was  intended  as  a private  letter 
to  his  friend,  Mr.  Slaughter,  and  was  published 
without  his  authority.  Having  been  republished 
and  severely  commented  upon  by  the  editor  of 


dership  at  Charleston,  in  this  attempt' to  di- ' tlae  Richmond  South,  Mr.  Yancey  addressed  a 

i . 1 . , 1/nffar*  r*+  OT7-\lQTiotirm  f n All’  Pdvad  in  tt’  Kinli  a 


% 


le  and  destroy  the  Democratic  party,  was  in 
; isted  to  appropriate  hands.  No  man  possessed 
i ability,  or  the  courage,  or  the  sincerity  in  his 
ect,  for  such  a mission,  in  a higher  degree, 
n the  gifted  Yancey.  He  has  a right  to  feel 
oud  of  his  achievements  at  Charleston.  In 
13,  at  Baltimore,  he  proclaimed  the  same  doc- 
ne,  and  failed  to  get  a State  to  stand  by  him 
“ seceding;  there  his  doctrines  were  repudiated. 
Idly  and  fearlessly  he  put  his  protest  on  record 
ainst  the  doctrine  of  non  intervention,  and 
-fthheld  his  assent  to  the  support  of  the  nomi- 
:e,  because  he  conscientiously  believed  that  the 
-nth  ought  to  insist  on  the  doctrine  of  interven- 
n by  Congress  in  support  of  slavery  in  the 
- rritories  when  the  people  did  not  want  it. 

" erruled  by  five  or  ten  to  one  in  Baltimore  in 
. -IS,  overruled  unanimously  at  Baltimore  ini 
■ a 52,  in  1856  he  concluded  that  perhaps  he  would 
.ke  a virtue  of  necessity,  and  submit  to  non- 
ervention;  and  he  got  up  instructions  in  favor 
non-intervention,  and  succeeded  in  putting  it 
the  platform,  before  the  nomination  of  the 


letter  of  explanation  to  Mr.  Pryob,  in  which  be 
declared  that  it  wa3  a private  letter,  written  in 
the  freedom  and  carelessness  of  private  confi- 
dence, and  was  subject  to  hostile  criticism. 
Therefore,  he  proceeded  to  explain  more  fully 
what  his  views  were  upon  the  question.  I have 
endeavored  to  obtain  an  entire  and  perfect  copy 
of  this  letter  to  Mr.  Pryor,  without  success.  I 
find,  however,  a long  extract,  embodying  proba- 
bly the  whole  of  its  material  parts,  in  the  Na- 
tional Intelligencer  of  September  4,  1858,  which, 
I have  no  doubt,  gives  a fair  representation  of 
Mr.  Yancey’s  opinions.  Finding  it  in  the  Intelli- 
gencer, a newspaper  so  proverbial  for  its  accu- 
racy and  its  fairness,  I doubt  not  that  the  extract 
does  full  justice  to  the  writer.  In  the  forepart 
of  the  letter,  Mr.  Yancey  proceeds  to  say  that,  “ bo 
be  candid,  I place  but  little  trust  in  such  States 
as  Delaware,  Maryland,  Tennessee,  Kentucky, 
and  Missouri.”  He  has  but  little  confidence  in 
them.  He  then  proceeds  to  give  his  reasons  why 
he  cannot  trust  them.  Delaware  he  regards  as 
nominally  a slave  State,  but  substantially  anti- 


rights of  the  South  under  the  Constitution, 
came  to  the  conclusion  that  it  was  time  to 
titute  some  other  organization  for  the  main- 
ance  of  southern  rights.  That  he  was  con- 
~ antious  and  sincere  in  his  views,  I do  not  doubt ; 
t that  they  lead  directly,  inevitably,  to  a dis- 
ution  of  the  Union,  and  the  formation  of  a 
--ithern  confederacy,  if  carried  out,  I think  is 
rond  all  question.  Doubtless  many  Senators 
-veseen  the  letter  of  Mr.  Yancey  to  Mr.  Slaugh- 
, of  the  date  of  June  15,  1858,  upon  the  sub- 

' ; of  “ PRECIPITATING  THE  COTTON  STATES  INTO 

olction.”  In  order  that  the  Senate  and  the 
tntry  may  see  that  I do  Mr.  Yancey  full  justice, 
!hall  have  the  whole  letter  read. 

Air.  PUGH  read,  as  follows: 

Montgomery,  June  15,  1858. 
ear  Sir  : Your  kind  letter  of  the  35th  is  received, 
hardly  agree  with  yoa  that  a general  movement  can  be 
lie  that  will  clear  out  the  Angean  stable-  If  the  Democracy 
e overthrown,  it  would  result  in  giving  place  to  a greater 
hungrier  swarm  of  flies. 

he  remedy  of  the  South  is  not  in  such  a process.  It  is  in  a 
;ent  organization  of  her  true  men  for  the  prompt  resistance 
oe  next  aggression.  It  must  come  in  the  nature  of  things, 
national  party  can  save  us  ; no  sectional  party  can  ever  do 
But  if  we  could  do  as  our  fathers  did — organize  “ commit- 
of  safety  ” all  over  the  cotton  States  (and  it  is  only  in  them 
. we  can  hope  for  any  effective  movement) — we  shall  fire 
southern  heart,  instruct  the  southern  mind,  give  courage  to 
1 other,  and,  at  the  proper  moment,  by  one  organized,  con 
r.  ed  action,  we  can  precipitate  the  cotton  States  into  a revo- 
r 0D-. 

■’he  idea  ha3  been  shadowed  forth  in  the  South  by  Mr.  Ruf- 
has  been  taken  up  and  recommended  by  the  Advertiser, 
er  the  name  of  “ League  of  United  Southerners,'’  who, 
- ping  up  their  old  party  relations  on  all  other  questions,  will 
l the  southern  issue  paramount,  and  will  influence  parties, 


ididate,  in  1856.  But  very  soon  be  came  to  ! s\av.etT-.  On  that  he  differs  in  opinion  from  the 
~ ! conclusion  that  this  great  Democratic  party  jj  distinguished  Senator  Ron1  Delaware,  (Mr.  Bay- 
not  competent  to  preserve  and  maintain  ard,)  who  thinks  that  Delaware  has  such  an  in- 
- - - - - - • terest  in  slavery  that  it  is  worth  while  to  break 

up  the  Democratic  party  on  account  of  slavery. 
(Laughter.)  But  Mr.  Yancey  has  not  much  faith 
in  Delaware  and  Maryland.  He  cannot  trust 
Maryland  because,  he  says,  she  keeps  Abolition- 
ists in  Congress.  Then,  he  says,  he  cannot  trust 
Missouri,  because  she,  for  a long  time,  sustained 
a Free-Soiler  in  the  Senate,  and  afterwards  in  the 
House  of  Representatives — alluding  to  Colonel 
Benton.  Then,  he  says,  he  cannot  trust  Tennes- 
see, because  she  kept  an  Abolitionist  here  in  the 
Senate  so  long,  and  reelected  him ; and  besides,  he 
says  Tennessee  never  bad  his  confidence  since;  a 
i Methodist  conference  refused  to  expunge  certain 
anti-slavery  opinions  which  John  Wesley  had 
inserted  into  the  ritual.  He  cannot  trust  Ken- 
tucky, because  Kentucky,  for  so  many  years, 
sustained  sucli  Free-Soilers  as  Clay  and  Critten- 
den! (Laughter.)  He  then  says: 

“ I did  not  name  Virginia.  It  is  trne  I did  not  discriminate 
between  Virginia  and  the  other  border  States.  My  purpose  did 
not  call  for  it.” 

After  giving  bis  reasons  why  he  could  not  trust 
the  border  slaveholding  States  which  I have 
named,  and  why  he  proposed  to  plunge  the  cot- 
ton States  into  revolution,  separating  them  from 
the  border  slave  States,  he  proceeds  as  follows : 
Mr.. PUGH  read  the  following: 

“ It  is  equally  true  that  I do  not  expect  Virginia  to  take  &ny 
initiative  steps  towards  a dissolotion  of  the  Union,  when  that 
exigency  shall  be  forced  npon  the  Sonth.  Her  position  as  a 
border  S3tare,  and  a well  considered  southern  policy,  (a  policy 
which  has  been  digested  and  understood,  and  approved  by  the 
ablest  men  in  Virginia,  as  you  yourself  must  be  aware,)  would 
seem  to  demand  that,  when  such  movement  lakes  place  by  any 


considerable  number  of  southern  States,  Virginia  and  the  other 
border  Slates  should  remain  in  the  Union,  where,  by  their  posi 
lion  and  their  counsels,  thev  could  prove  more  effective  friends, 
than  by  moving  out  of  the  Union,  and  thus  giving  to  the  south 
ern  confederacy  a long  abolition  hostile  bolder  (o  watch.  Tti 
the  event  of  the  movement  being  successful,  in  time,  Virginia, 
and  the  oilier  border  States  that  desired  it,  could  join  the  south- 
ern confederacy,  and  be  protected  by  the  power  of  its  arms  and 
its  diplomacy. 

“ Vour  charge  that  T designed  to,  and  did,  impeach  the  fideli- 
ty of  Virginia,  is  nntrue,  however  much  of  truth  there  may  be  in 
it  with  reference  to  those  border  States  that  I have  named.” 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  So  it  seems  that,  in  185S,  a 
well-digested  plan  had  been  matured  and  ap- 
proved by  many  of  the  ablest  men  of  the  South, 
and  even  in  Virginia;  and  that  by  that  plan  it 
was  not  expected  that  Virginia,  and  these  other 
unsound  border  States,  were  to  go  out  of  the 
Union  when  the  South  was  forced  to  dissolve — 
using  the  word  “ forced.”  One  would  suppose 
that  if  there  was  any  such  injustice  to  the  slave- 
holding  States  as  to  force  the  South  out,  in  de- 
fence of  her  constitutional  rights,  Virginia  would 
be  expected  to  be  as  tenacious  of  them  as  any 
oilier. State;  but  he  did  not  expect  that.  Vir- 
ginia, Tennessee,  Kentucky,  Missouri,  Maryland, 
and  Delaware,'  were  expected,  by  that  plan,  to 
remain  in  the  Union,  for  the  reason  that,  by  so  re- 
maining, they  could  render  more  service  to  those 
who  went  out  than  they  could  if  they  went  out 
with  them.  A very  enviable  position  Mr.  Yancey 
puts  the  Old  Dominion  in  ! He  wishes  to  retire 
from  you,  and  asks  you  to  remain  with  us,  in  or- 
der that  you  may  annoy  and  distract  and  betray 
us,  for  the  benefit  of  those  that  go  out ; and  he 
holds  out  the  assurance  that,  in  the  course  of 
time,  perhaps,  Virginia  and  Maryland,  and  Ken- 
tucky and  Tennessee,  and  Missouri,  may  become 
sound  enough  to  be  admitted  into  the  southern 
confederacy.  He  is  going  to  keep  you  on  proba- 
tion awhile,  guarding  a long  abolition  frontier, 
for  the  benefit  of  the  cotton  States  ; and  after 
awhile,  perhaps,  if  you  do  good  service,  and  so 
act  as  to  be  entitled  to  his  respect,  and  confidence, 
then  he  will  admit  you  into  this  southern  con- 
federacy of  the  cotton  States! 

Mr.  Yancey  tells  us  of  the  “well-digested 
plan.”  It  was  not  to  be  executed  at  once;  and 
in  the  mean  time  all  the  men  in  the  plan  must 
preserve  their  relations  in  the  Democratic  party, 
so  as  to  influence  public  men  and  public  measures, 
and  thus  be  ready  to  have  more  influence  in  pre- 
cipitating this  result  on  the  party,  and  breaking 
it  up.  Part  of  the  plan  was  to  pretend  still  to 
be  members,  keep  in  the  party,  go  into  fellowship 
with  us,  seem  anxious  to  preserve  the  organiza- 
tion, and  at  the  proper  time  plunge  the  cotton 
States  into  revolution.  What  was  the  proper 
time,  to  which  lie  alluded?  Was  it  at  the 
Charleston  convention?  Was  that  to  be  the  au- 
picious  moment?  The  history  of  the  event 
shows  that  Mr.  Yancey  there  acted- up  to  his 
programme  announced  in  his  letters  to  Slaughter 
and  Pryor.  He  preserved  his  relations  with  his 
party  with  a view  of  exercising  influence  on  pub- 
lic men  and  measures,  over  northern  as  well  as 
southern  men,  and  finally  proposed  an  interven- 
tion platform,  reversing  the  creed  of  the  party, 
and  “at  the  proper  time”  he  did  precipitate  the 
cotton  States  into  revolution,  and  led  them  out 


non, 

rpose 


it  Ilia 


ildio 


'top 

1st! 


itopl 


of  the  convention.  The  programme  was  ci 
out  to  the  letter;  and  he  did  leave  in  the  co 
tion  those  unsound  States  that  lie  could  not,  lorn 
such  as  Virginia  and  Tennessee  and  Ken 
and  Missouri  and  North  Carolina  and  Del 
and  Maryland.  Part  of  Delaware,  I believ 
lowed  him;  but  they  came  to  the  conclusio 
Delaware  was  not  big  enough  to  divide.  (L 
ter.)  Her  champion  returned  back  into  the  l Jnion 
ern  confederacy.  Was  it  to  keep  wat-cb 
guard  an  abolition  frontier  for  the  ben< 
the  cotton  States  ? Is  Delaware  to  be  ret 
into  Mr.  Yancey’s  southern  confederacy  a iry, 
while?  Will  he  consent  to  allow  Virgil 
come?  Will  North  Carolina  be  accepted  by- 
Will  Tennessee  be  permitted  to  come 
that  she  has  got  rid  of  her  Free-Soil  Sen 
Will  he  allow  Kentucky  to  join,  when  such 
litionists  as  Clay  and  Crittenden  have  cea 
represent  her?  I beg  the  pardon  of  the  S<  [ 
from  Kentucky  for  repeating  his  name  i 
connection.  The  gallant  Senator  from  Ken 
an  Abolitionist ! A Free-Soiler!  A man 
fame  is  as  wide  as  civilization,  whose  patii 
whose  loyalty  to  the  Constitution  was 
questioned  by  men  of  any  party!  (Appla 
the  galleries.)  Oh,  with  what  devotion  cc 
thank  God  if  every  man  in  America  wa 
such  an  Abolitionist  as  Henry  Clay  and  Jc 
Crittenden!  (Renewed  applause.) 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER,  (Mr.  Fo 
Order! 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  I wish  to  God  that  the 
American  people  were  just  such  Abolitioni 
Clay  and  Crittenden.  (Applausein  the  gall 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.  The  Ch 
obliged  to  say  that  a repetition  of  the  o 
from  the  galleries  must  be  followed  by  an 
for  the  clearance  of  the  galleries  forthwith. 
Chair  gives  this  notice  to  nil  persons  occu 
seats  in  the  galleries  on  the  assumed  autlqjj 
and  direction  of  the  Senate  itself. 

My  DOUGLAS.  I do  not  say  that  Mr.  Y 
and  his  associates  at  Charleston  mean  disi 
I have  no  authority  for  saying  any  more 
appears  in  the  publication  of  his  matured 
Sir,  it  was  said  with  truth  that  the  order  o 
tie  issued  at  Cerro  Gordo  by  General  Scott 
befoye  the  battle,  was  a complete  history 
triumph  after  tire  battle  was  over,  so 
were  his  arrangements,  so  exact  wa3  the  ci 
ance  with  his  orders.  The  programme 
Yancey-,  published  two  years  ago,  is  a tr 
history  of  the  secession  movement  at  Chari 
I have  not  the  slightest  idea  that  all  those  fW( 
came  under  his  influence  in  maturing  his 
urea,  concurred  in  the  ends  to  which  these 
ures  inevitably  led  ; but  what  were  Mr. 
uey's  measures?  He  proposed  to  insist  u 
platform  identical  in  every  feature  with  tin  sjf 
cus  resolutions  which  we  are  now  asked  to  a 
Tiie  Yancey  platform  at  Charleston,  knoi 
the  majority  report  from  the  committee  on 
lutions,  in  substance  and  spirit  and  legal 
was  the  same  as  the  Senate  caucus  resolu  ,f , 
the  same  a3  the  resolutions  now  under 
sion,  and  upon  which  the  Senate  iA called 
to  vote. 


ajs 

Terr 


foi 


lit 


ral  i 


l€  ils  t 


let 


sep: 


live 


,;:I  o not  suppose  that  any  gentleman  advocat- 

- ais  platform  in  the  Senate,  means  or  desires  ' 
ion.  I acquit  each  and  every  man  of  such 

rT  pose ; but  I believe,  in  my  conscience,  that 
: a platform  of  principles,  insisted  upon,  will 
'L  directly  and  inevitably  to  a dissolution  of 
V ‘nion.  This  platform  demands  congressional 
-vention  for  slavery  in  the  Territories  in  cer- 
events.  What  are  these  events?  In  the 
:fi;  that  the  people  of  a Territory  do  not  want 
; ry,  and  will  not  provide  by  law  for  its  in- 
lotion  and  protection,  and  that  fact  shall  be 
-7  tained  judicially,  then  Congress  is  to  pledge 
: : to  pass  laws  to  force  the  Territories  to  have 
'-  s this  the  non-intervention  to  which  the 
- tcratic  party  pledged  itself  at  Baltimore  and 
■ nnati?  So  long  as  the  people  of  a Territory 

- slavery,  and  say  so  in  their  legislation,  the 
‘fixates  of  the  caucus  platform  are  willing  to 

rem  have  it,  and  to  act  upon  the  principle  , 

- ’-  Congress  shall  not  interfere.  They  are  for 

- - nterference  so  long  as  the  people  want  sla- 

so  long  as  they  will  provide  by  law  for  its  , 
Auction  and  protection;  but  the  moment 
x eople  sav  the}'  do  not  want  it,  and  will  not 
y it,  then  Congress  must  intervene  and  force 
istitution  on  an  unwilling  people.  On  the 
hand,  the  Republican  party  is  also  for  non- 
vention  in  certain  contingencies.  The  Re- 
cans  are  for  non-intervention  just  so  long  as 
eople  of  the  Territories  do  not  want  slavery, 

7 ay  so  by  their  laws.  So  long  as  the  people  j 
‘—Territory  prohibit  slavery,  the  Abolitionists 

‘ : or  non-intervention,  and  will  not  interfere 
; but  whenever  the  people  of  the  Territo- 
:a  ay  by  their  legislation  that  they  do  want 
~ d provide  b}T  law  for  its  introduction  and 
Action,  then  the  Republicans  are  for  inter- 
-;:I  g and  for  depriving  them  of  it.  Each  of 
_ s for  intervention  for  your  own  section,  and 

- st  it  when  non-intervention  operates  for 
section.  There  is  no  difference  in  principle  ; 

:-  een  intervention  North  and  intervention 

- ..  Each  asserts  the  power  and  duty  of  the  ! 
•a!  Government  to  force  institutions  upon  | 

: willing  people.  Each  denies  the  right  of 
( overniuent  to  the  people  of  the  Territory! 
: ['  their  internal  and  domestic  concerns.  Each 
--  !.ls  to  the  passions,  prejudices,  and  ambition  j 
■ ;own  section,  against  the  peace  and  harmony  ! 
i whole  country. 

■ 1 let  this  doctrine  of  intervention  North  and  i 
7;;-ention  South  become  the  rallying  point  of 
J-1'  jreat  parties,  and  you  will  find  that  you 
two  sectional  parties,  divided  by  that  line 
separates  the  free  from  the  slaveholding 
'7  «.  Whenever  this  shall  become  the  doctrine 
s two  parties,  you  will  find  a southern  inter- 

8 )n  party  for  slavery,  and  a northern  inter- 
t-1'  >n  party  against  slavery ; and  then  will 

- the  ‘'irrepressible  conflict”  of  which  we 
: heard  so  much.  We  have  had  an  illustra- 

- f what  kind  of  intervention  you  will  get 
: ' - ever  you  recognize  the  right  of  Congress  to 

rene  on  this  subject.  The  House  of  Repre- 
;ives  sent  us  a bill,  the  other  day,  repealing 
ave  code  which  was  unanimously  adopted 
e Legislature  of  New  Mexico,  and  fastening 


the  Wilmot  proviso  upon  that  Territory  against 
the  will  of  that  people.  That  bill  is  now  pend- 
ing on  your/table,  and  awaiting  the  action  of 
this  .body,  side  by  side  with  a resolution  of  one 
of  the  Senators  frpm  Mississippi  (Mr.  Brown) 
to  repeal  the  prohibition  of  slavery  in  Kansas 
Territory,  with  a view  to  force  them  to  have 
the  institution,  whether  they  want  it  or  not.  I 
tell  you  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Democratic 
party,  as  proclaimed  in  1848  and  in  1852  at  Bal- 
timore, in  1856  at  Cincinnati,  and  in  1860  at 
Charleston,  is  that  we  must  resist,  with  all  our 
energies,  both  these  propositions  for  interven- 
tion. So  long  as  the  people  of  Kansas  do  not 
want  slavery,  you  shall  never  force  it  on  them, 
by  any  act  of  Congress,  if  I can  prevent  it.  So 
long  as  the  people  of  New  Mexico  do  want  sla- 
very, you  on  the  other  side  of  the  Chamber  shall 
□ ever  deprive  them  of  it,  if  I can  prevent  it. 
You,  gentlemen  in  the  Northeast  or  in  the  North- 
west, do  not  know  what  kind  of  laws  and  insti- 
tutions the  people  of  New  Mexico  desire  as  well 
as  they  do  themselves.  Your  people  in  the  Gulf 
States,  or  in  those  cotton  States  that  are  to  be 
plunged  into  revolution,  do  not  know  what  kind 
of  laws  and  institutions  are  adapted  to  the  wants 
and  interests  and  happiness  of  the  people  of  Ne- 
braska, so  well  as  the  settlers  in  that  Territory 
do.  Our  doctrine — the  doctrine  of  the  Demo- 
cratic party  as  proclaimed  at  Charleston — is  non- 
interference by  the  Federal  Government  with 
the  local  concerns  and  domestic  affairs  of  the 
people,  either  in  the  States  or  in  the  Territories. 

But,  we  are  told  that  the  necessary  result  of 
this  doctrine  of  non-intervention,  which  gentle- 
men, by  way  of  throwing  ridicule  upon,  call 
squatter  sovereignty,  is  to  deprive  the  South  of 
all  participation  in  what  they  call  the  common 
Territories  of  the  United  States.  That  was  the 
ground  on  which  the  Senator  from  Mississippi 
(Mr.  Davis)  predicated  his  opposition  to  -the 
compromise  measures  of  1850.  He  regarded  a 
refusal  to  repeal  the  Mexican  law  as  equivalent 
to  the  Wilmot  proviso;  a refusal  to  recognize  by 
an  act  of  Congress  the  right  to  carry  a slave 
there  as  equivalent  to  the  Wilmot  proviso;  a 
refusal  to  deny  to  the  Territorial  Legislature  the 
right  to  exclude  slavery  as  equivalent  to  an  ex- 
clusion. He  believed  at  that  time  that  this  doe- 
trine  did  amount  to  a denial  of  southern  rights; 
and  he  told  the  people  of  Mississippi  so;  but 
they  doubted  it.  Now,  let  us  see  how  far  his 
predictions  and  suppositions  have  been  verified. 
[ infer  that  he  told  the  people  of  Mississippi  so, 
for  as  he  makes  it  a charge  in  his  bill  of  indict- 
ment against  me,  that  I am  hostile  to  southern 
rights,  because  I gave  those  votes. 

Now,  what  has  been  the  result?  My  views 
were  incorporated  into  the  compromise  measures 
of  1850,  and  his  were  rejected.  Has  the  South 
been  excluded  from  all  the  territory  acquired, 
from  Mexico?  What  says  the  bill  from  the  House 
of  Representatives  now  on  your  table,  repealing 
the  slave  code  in  New  Mexico  established  by  the 
people  themselves?  It  is  part  of  the  history  of 
the  country  that  under  this  doctrine  of  non-in- 
tervention, this  doctrine  that  you  delight  to  call 
squatter  sovereignty,  the  people  of  New  Mexico 


Lave  introduced  and  protected  slavery  in  the 
whole  of  that  Territory.  Under  this  doctrine, 
they  have  converted  a tract  of  free  territory  into 
slave  territory,  more  than  five  times  the  size  of 
the  State  of  tiew  York.  Under  this  doctrine, 
slavery  has  been  extended  from  the  Rio  Grande 
to  the  Gulf  of  Californio,  and  from  the  line  of 
the  Republic  of  Mexico,  not  only  up  to  36°  30', 
but  up  to  38° — giving  you  a degree  and  a half 
more  slavery  territory  than  you  ever  claimed. 
In  1848  and  1849  and  1850  you  only  asked  to 
have  the  line  of  36°  30'.  The  Nashville  conven- 
tion fixed  that  as  its  ultimatum.  I offered  it  in 
the  Senate  in  August,  1848,  and  it  was  adopted 
here  but  rejected  in  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives. You  asked  only  up  to  36°  30',  and  non- 
intervention has  given  you  slave  territory  up  to 
38°,  a degree  and  a half  more  than  you  asked; 
and  yet  you  say  that  that  is  a sacrifice  of  south- 
ern rights! 

These  are  the  fruits  of  this  principle,  which  the 
Senator  from  Mississippi  regards  as  hostile  to  the 
rights  of  the  South.  Where  did  you  ever  get 
any  other  fruits  that  were  more  palatable  to  your 
taste,  or  more  refreshing  to  your  strength  ? What 
other  inch  of  free  territory  has  been  converted 
into  slave  territory  on  the  American  continent, 
since  the  Revolution,  except  in  New  Mexico  and 
Arizona,  under  the  principle  of  non-intervention 
affirmed  at  Charleston?  If  it  be  true  that  this 
principle  of  non-intervention  has  conferred  upon 
you  all  that  immense  Territory;  has  protected 
slavery  in  that  comparatively  northern  and  cold 
region  where  you  did  not  expeet  it  to  go,  cannot 
you  trust  the  same  principle  further  South  when 
you  come  to  acquire  additional  territory  from 
Mexico?  If  it  be  true  that  this  principle  of  non- 
intervention has  given  to  slavery  all  New  Mex- 
ico which  was  surrounded  on  nearly  every  side 
by  free  Territory,  will  not  the  same  principle 
protect  you  in  the  northern  States  of  Mexico 
when  they  are  acquired,  since  they  are  now  sur- 
rounded by  slave  territory;  are  several  hun- 
dred miles  further  South ; have  many  degrees  of 
greater  heat;  and  have  a climate  and  soil  adapted 
to  southern  products?  Are  you  not  satisfied  with 
these  practical  results?  Do  you  desire  to  appeal 
from  the  people  of  the  Territories  to  the  Congress 
of  the  Unit  ed  States  to  settle  this  question  in  the 
Territories?  When  you  distrust  the  people  and 
appeal  to  Congress,  with  both  Houses  largely 
against  you  on  this  question,  what  sort  of  pro- 
tection will  you  get?  Whenever  you  ask  a slave 
code  from  Congress  to  protect  your  institutions 
in  a Territory  where  the  people  do  not  want  it, 
you  will  get  that  sort  of  protection  which  the 
wolf  gives  to  the  lamb;  you  will  get  that  sort 
of  friendly  hug  that  the  grizzly  bear  gives  to  the 
infant.  Appealing  to  an  anti-slavery  Congress 
to  pass  laws  of  protection,  with  a view  of  forc- 
ing slavery  on  an  unwilling  and  hostile  people! 
Sir,  of  all  the  mad  schemes  that  ever  could  be 
devised  by  the  South  or  by  the  enemies  of  the 
the  South,  that  which  recognizes  the  right  of 
Congress  to  touch  the  institution  of  slavery  either 
in  States  or  Territories,  beyond  the  single  case 
provided  in  the  Constitution  for  the  rendition  of 
fugitive  slaves,  is  the  most  fatal. 


folnre, 
le  to 


Mr.  President,  this  morning,  before  I star  heDieei 
for  the  Senate  Chamber,  I received  a newspa  mar pri 


This 


gifted  sons  upon  this  question  of  non-interv  nml)n( 
tion.  I allude  to  one  of  the  brightest  intelh  ailian. 
that  this  nation  has  ever  produced;  one  of  S®*! 
most  useful  public  men  ; one  whose  retirem 
from  among  us  created  universal  regret  throu  jerritor 
out  the  whole  country.  You  will  recognize  shah" 
once  that  I mean  Alexander  H.  Stephens,  8”r<1 
Georgia.  Since  the  adjournment  of  the  Char 
ton  convention,  Mr.  Stephens  has  responded  tie iu” 


Ilf  00  li 


counsel  of  a patriot- — to  the  party  and  the  coLja 
try  in  this  emergency.  In  the  letter  he  revii  (mii 
the  doctrine  of  non-intervention,  and  shows  t 
he  was  originally  opposed  to  it,  but  submitter  " 
it  because  the  South  demanded  it;  that  it  ha  es, ine 
southern  origin  ; is  a southern  doctrine;  was  i Bl®! 
tated  to  the  North  by  the  South ; and  he  accep  ‘e”rJa 
it  because  the  South  required  it.  He  shows  t under t 
the  same  doctrine  was  incorporated  in  the  K Unerir. 
sas-Nebraska  bill,  that  it  formed  a compact  f clai“ 
honor  between  northern  and  southern  men  efer lo i 
which  we  were  all  bound  to  stand.  He  give  pidm 


Ilia! 


the  one  I gave  to  you  yesterday,  without  km 
ing  that  he  had  written  such  a letter.  Mr.  after 


phens  has  a right  to  speak  as  to  the  meaning  ®rla 


__  . Mill  He 

No  man  m the  rlo[s.j. 


the  Kansas  Nebraska  bill. 

of  Representatives  exerted  more  power  and  dkjthi 
fluence  in  securing  its  passage  than  Alexander 


Stephens.  I ask  that  the  whole  of  his  letter,  li 


as  it  is,  be  read,  for  it  covers  the  entire  grou  esuljc 
and  speaks  in  the  voice  of  patriotism,  counsel  ““i 

1 . . 1 . — verv  i 


the  only  course  that  can  preserve  the  Democri  "r) 


’ ng  Ion 


party  and  perpetuate  the  union  of  these  StaUt»o* 

Mr.  PUGH  read,  as  follows:  omlil 

toils 

Crawfordville,  Georgia,  May  9, 186'  i 
Gentlemen  : Yonr  letter  of  the  5th  instant  was  reeei  1 
last  night,  and  I promptly  respond  to  your  call  as  ele 
and  fully  as  a heavy  press  of  business  engagements  ^ 
permit.  I shall  endeavor  to  be  no  less  pointed  and  , 1 1 
plicit  than  candid.  You  do  not,  in  my  judgment,  O'  , 
estimate  the  importance  of  the  questions  now  press  Y, 
upon  the  public  mind,  growing  out  of  the  disruptioi  . 


the  Charleston  convention.  While  I was  not  greatly 


pirn 


prised  at  that  result,  considering  the  elements  of  its  .. 
position,  and  the  general  distemper  of  the  times— sti  Y 
deeply  regret  it,  and  with  you,  look  with  intense  inte  “ . 
to  the  consequences.  What  is  done,  cannot  be  undon-  yj 
amended;  that  must  remain  irrevocable.  It  would,  th  'l 
fore,  be  as  useless,  as  ungracious,  to  indulge  in  any  rel 
tions  as  to  whose  fault  the  rupture  was  owing  to.  Perh 
and  most  probably,  undue  excitement  and  heat  of  pass 


in  pursuit  of  particular  ends,  connected  with  the  eleva  )i; 
or  overthrow  of  particular  rivals  lor  preferment,  n " 
than  any  strong  desire,  guided  by  cool  judgment,  so  Y'1 
cessary  on  such  occasions  to  advance  the  public  good,  , 
the  real  cause  of  the  rupture.  Be  that  as  it  may,  howe  !f 
what  is  now  to  be  done,  and  what  is  the  proper  cours  . 
be  taken  ? To  my  mind,  the  course  seems  to  be  clear, , 1 1 


«[i  It 


a i-v  uc  wcai.  ^ 

A State  convention  should  be  called  at  an  early  day— i m c' 


that  convention  should  consider  the  whole  subject  call  ^ 
and  dispassionately,  with  u the  sober  second  thought,” 
determine  whether  to  send  a representation  to  Iiichm<  (|  W 
or  to  Baltimore.  The  correct  determination  of  this  qi  vj 
tion,  as  I view  it,  will  depend  upon  another;  and  tha 
whether  the  doctrine  of  non-intervention  by  Congress  v 
slavery  in  the  Territories  ought  to  be  adhered  to  or  ah  B wi 
doned  by  the  South.  This  is  a very  grave  and  seri  0uy  r 
question,  and  ought  not  to  be  decided  rashly  or  intemp  w 
ately.  No  such  small  matters  as  the  promotion  of  thi:  8*aye 
that  individual,  however  worthy  or  unworthy,  ough  ^ndi 
enter  into  its  consideration.  It  is  a great  subject  of  pf  a° 1 
lie  policy,  aJfecting  the  vast  interests  of  the  present 


29 


'attire.  It  may  be  unnecessary,  and  entirely  useless, 
te  to  obtrude  my  views  upon  this  question  in  advance 
e meeting  of  such  convention,  upon  whom  its  decis- 
oay  primarily  devolve.  I cannot,  however,  comply 
your  request  without  doing  so  to  a limited  extent,  at 
This  1 shall  do.  In  the  first  place,  then,  I assume, 
unquestioned  and  unquestionable  fact,  that  non-in- 
ntion , as  stated,  has  been  for  many  years  received, 
;nized,  and  acted  upon,  as  the  settled  doctrine  of  the 
By  non-intervention,  I mean  the  principle  that 
ress  shall  pass  no  law  upon  the  subject  of  slavery  in 
- "erritories,  either  for  or  against  it,  in  any  way — that 
" shall  not  interfere  or  act  upon  it  at  all — or,  in  the  ex- 
i words  of  Mr.  Calhoun,  the  great  southern  leader, 
Congress  shall  “leave  the  whole  subject  where  the 
titution  and  the  great  principles  of  self-government 
it.-’  This  has  been  eminently  a southern  doctrine, 
is  announced  by  Mr.  Calhoun  in  his  speech  in  the 
te  on  the  2Tth  of  June,  1S48;  and,  after  two  years  of 
ssion.  it  was  adopted  as  the  basis  of  the  adjustment 
■ y made  in  1S50.  It  was  the  demand  of  the  South,  put 
t by  the  South,  and,  since  its  establishment,  has  been 
and  again  affirmed  and  reaffirmed  as  the  settled 
' y of  the  South,  by  party  conventions  and  State  Legis- 
ts, in  every  form  that  a people  can  give  authoritative 
■ssion  to  their  will  and  wishes.  This  cannot  now  be 
ter  of  dispute.  It  is  history,  as  indelibly  fixed  upon 
■j^cord  as  the  fact  that  the  colony  of  Georgia  was  set- 
“ tnder  the  auspices  of  Oglethorpe,  or  that  the  war  of 
K meriean  Revolution  was  fought  in  resistance  to  the 
t claim  of  power  on  the  part  of  the  British  Parlia- 

fer  to  this  matter  of  history  connected  with  the  sub- 
: inder  consideration,  barely  as  a starting  point — to 
how  we  stand  in  relation  to  it.  It  is  not  a new  ques- 
lt  has  been  up  before,  and  whether  rightly  or  wrong- 
las  been  decided  — decided  and  settled  just  as  the 
asked  that  it  should  be  — not,  however,  without 
effort  and  a prolonged  struggle.  The  question  now 
"jail  the  South  abandon  her  own  position  in  that  de- 
1 and  settlement?  This  is  the  question  virtually  pre- 
l by  the  action  of  the  seceders  from  ihe  Charleston 
ntion,  and  the  grounds  upon  which  they  based  their 
or,  stated  in  other  words,  it  amounts  to  this : 
er  the  southern  States,  after  all  that  has  taken  place 
subject,  should  now  reverse  their  previous  course, 
jfemand  congressional  intervention  for  the  protection 
Very  in  the  Territories,  as  a condition  of  their  re- 
Tag  longer  in  the  Union  ? For  I take  it  for  granted 
would  be  considered  by  all  as  the  most  mischievous 
make  the  demand,  unless  we  intend  to  push  the 
to  its  ultimate  and  legitimate  results-.  Shall  the 
then,  make  this  demand  of  Congress,  and  when 
in  case  of  failure  to  obtain  it,  shall  she  secede  from 
lion,  as  a portion  of  her  delegates  (some  under  in- 
ns, and  some  from  their  own  free  will)  seceded 
he  convention,  on  their  failure  to  get  it  granted 


s stands  the  naked  question,  as  I understand  it,  pre- 
by  the  action  of  the  seceders,  in  its  full  dimensions 
ngth,  breadth,  and  depth,  in  all  its  magnitude, 
presented,  not  to  the  Democratic  party  alone;  it  is 
convention  of  that  party  may  first  act  on  it,  but  it  is 
ted  to  ihe  country,  to  the  whole  people  of  the  South, 
® [parties.  And  men  of  all  parties  should  duly  and 
^consider  it,  for  they  may  all  have  to  take  sides  on 
iier  or  later.  » 

ses  in  iranortance  high  above  any  party  organiza- 
the  present  day,  ai  d it  may,  and  ought  to,  if  need 
eep  them  all  from  the  board.  My  judgment  is 
the  demand.  If  it  were  a new  question,  presented 
^resent  light  for  the  first  time,  my  views  upon  ir 
be  different  from  what  they  are.  It  is  known  to 
d the  country  that  the  policy  of  non-intervention , 
olished  at  the  instance  of  the  South,  was  no  favor- 
of  mine.  As  to  my  position  upon  it,  and  the  doc- 
ow  revived,  when  they  were  original  and  open 
ns,  as  well  as  my  present  views,  I will  cite  you  to 
act  of  a speech  made  by  me  in  Augusta,  in  July 
taking  final  leave  of  my  constituents.  I could  not 
them  more  clearly  or  more  briefly.  In  speaking  of, 
dewing  this ‘matter,  I then  said : 

1.  a?  you  all  know,  it  (non-intervention)  came  short 
1 1 wished.  It  was,  in  my  view,  not  the  full  meas- 
our  rights  — that  required,  in  my  judgment,  the 
ent  by  Congress  of  all  needful  laws  for  the  protec- 
slave  property  in  the  Territories,  so  long  as  the  ter- 
condition  lasted. 

an  overwhelming  majority  of  the  South  was 


icT||  . 


against  that  position.  It  was  said  that  we  who  maintained 
it,  yieided  the  whole  question  by  yielding  the  jurisdiction 
— and  that,  if  we  conceded  the  power  to  protect,  we  neces- 
sarily conceded  with  it  the  power  to  prohibit.  This  by  no 
means  followed,  in  my  judgment.  But  such  was  the  pre- 
vailing opinion.  And  it  was  not  until  it  was  well  ascer- 
tained that  a large  majority  of  the  South  would  not  ask 
for,  or  even  vote  for,  congressional  protection,  that  those  of 
us  who  were  for  it  yielded  to  non-intervention,  becanse, 
though  it  came  short  of  our  wishes,  yet,  it  contained  no 
sacrifice  of  principle,  had  nothing  aggressive  in  it,  and  se- 
cured, for  all  practical  purposes,  what  was  wanted,  that 

is,  the  unrestricted  right  of  expansion  over  the  common 

public  domain,  as  inclination,  convenience,  or  necessity 
may  require  on  the  part  of  our  people.”  * * * 

‘‘Thus  the  settlement  was  made;  thus  the  record 
stands,  and  by  it  I am  still  willing  to  stand,  as  it  was  ful- 
ly up  to  the  demands  of  the  South,  through  her  representa- 
tives at  the  time,  though  not  up  to  my  own;  and,  as  by 

it,  the  right  of  expansion  to  the  extent  of  population  and 
capacity  is  amply  secured.” 

In  this  you  clearly  perceive  what  I think  of  the  proper 
course  now  to  be  taken  on  the  same  subject.  "While  in  the 
beginning  of  this  controversy  I was  hot  favorable  to  the 
policy  adopted,  yet  I finally  yielded  my  assent.  It  was 
yielded  to  the  South — to  the  prevailing  sentiment  of  my 
own  section.  But  it  never  would  have  been  yielded  if  I 
had  seen  that,  any  of  our  important  rights,  or  any  principle 
essential  to  our  safety  or  security,  could,  by  possibility, 
result  from  its  operation.  Nor  would  I now  be  willing  to 
abide  by  it,  if  I saw  in  its  practical  workings  any  serious 
injury  to  the  South  likely  to  arise  from  it.  'All  parties  in 
the  South,  after  tlie  settlement  was  made,  gave  it  the  sanc- 
tion of  their  acquiesence,  if  not  cordial  approval.  What, 
then,  has  occurred  since  to  cause  us  to  change  our  posi- 
tion in  relation  to  it?  Is  it  that  those  of  the  North  who 
stood  by  ns  in  the  struggle  from  1848  to  1S50,  did  after- 
wards stand  nobly  by  us  in  1854,  in  taking  off  the  old  con- 
gressional restriction  of  1S20,  so  as  to  have  complete  non- 
intervention throughout  the  length  and  breadth  of  the 
common  public  domain  ? Was  this  heroism  on  their  part, 
in  adhering  to  principle,  at  the  hazard  and  peril  of  their 
political  lives  and  fortunes,  the  cause  of  present  complaint? 
This  cannot  be ; for  never  was  an  act  of  Congress  so  gen- 
erally and  so  unanimously  hailed  with  delighfat  the  South 
as  this  one  was — I mean  the  Kansas-Nebraska  act  of  1S54? 
It  was  not  only  indorsed  by  all  parties  in  Georgia,  but 
every  one  who  did  not  agree  to  its  just  provisions,  upon 
the  subject  of  slavery,  was  declared  to  be  unfit  to  bold 
party  associations  with  any  party  not  hostile  to  the  inter- 
ests of  the  South.  What,  then,  is  the  cause  of  complaint 
now?  Wherein  has  this  policy  worked  any  injury  to  the 
Sonth,  or  wherein  is  it  likely  to  work  any? 

Tlie  only  cause  of  complaint  I have  heard  is,  that  non- 
intervention,, as  established  in  1S50,  and  carried  out  in 
1S54,  is  not  understood  at  the  North  as  it  is  at  the  South  ; 
that,  while  we  hold  that,  in  leaving  “the  whole  subject 
where  the  Constitution  and  the  great  principles  of  self- 
government  place  it,”  the  common  Territories  are  to  re- 
main open  for  settlement  by  southern  people,  with  their 
slaves,  until  otherwise  provided  by  a State  constitution. 
The  friends  and  supporters  of  the  same  doctrine  at  the 
North  maintain  that,  under  it.  the  people  of  an  organized 
Territory  can  protect  or  exclude  slave  property  before  the 
formation  of  a State  constitution.  This  opinion  or  con- 
struction of  theirs  is  what  is  commonly  dubbed  “squatter 
sovereignty  ” Upon  this  point  of  difference  in  construc- 
tion of  what  are  “the  great  principles  of  self-government,” 
under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  a great  deal 
has  been  said  and  written.  We  have  heard  it  in  the  social 
circle,  in  the  forum,  on  the  hustings,  and  in  the  halls  of 
legislation.  The  newspapers  have^literally  groaned  with 
dissertations  on  it.  Pamphlets  have  been  published  for 
and  against  the  respective  sides.  Congress  has  spent 
months  in  its  discussion,  and  may  spend  as  many  years  as 
they  have  months,  without  arriving  at  any  more  definite 
or  satisfactory  conclusion  in  relation  to  it  than  Milton’s 
perplexed  spirits  did  upon  the  abstruse  questions  on  which 
they  held  such  high  and  prolonged  debate  when  they  rea- 
soned— 

“ Of  Providence,  foreknowledge,  will,  and  fate — 
Fixed  fate,  free  will,  foreknowledge,  absolute — 

And  found  no  end,  in  wandering  mazes  lost.” 

It  is  not  my  purpose  now  to  enter  the  list  of  these  dis- 
putants. My  own  opinions  upon  the  subject  are  known  ; 
and  it  is  equally  known  that  this  difference  of  opinion,  or 
construction,  is  no  new  thing  in  the  history  of  this  subject. 
Those  who  hold  the  doctrine  that  the  people  of  the  Terri- 


30 


tones,  according  to  the  great  principles  of  self-govern- 
ment, under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  can 
exclude  slavery  by  territorial  law,  and  regulate  slave  pro- 
perty as  all  other  property,  held  the  same  views  they  now 
do,  when  we  agreed  with  them  to  stand  on  those  terms. 
This  fact  is  also  historical.  The  South  held  that,  under 
the  Constitution,  the  Territorial  Legislatures  could  not 
exclude  slavery — that  this  required  an  act  of  sovereignty 
to  do.  Some  gentlemen  of  the  North  held,  as  they  now 
do,  that  the  Territorial  Legislatures  could  control  slave 
property  as  absolutely  as  they  could  any  other  kind  of  pro- 
perty, and  by  a system  of  laws  could  virtually  exclude 
slavery  from  amongst  them,  or  prevent  its  introduction,  if 
they  chose. 

That  point  of  difference  it  was  agreed,  by  both  sides,  to 
•leave  to  the  courts  to  settle.  There  was  no  cheat,  or  swin- 
dle, or  fraud,  or  double-dealing  in  it.  It  was  a fair,  hon- 
orable, and  constitutional  adjustment  of  the  difference. 
No  assertion  or  declaration  by  Congress,  one  way  or  the 
other,  could  have  affected  the  question  in  the  least  degree ; 
for,  if  the  people,  according  to  “the  great  principles  of 
self-government”  under  the  Constitution,  have  the  right 
contended  lor  by  those  who  espouse  that  side  of  the  argu- 
ment, then  Congress  tould  not  and  cannot  deprive  them 
ol  it.  And,  if  Congress  did  not  have,  or  does  not  have,  ihe 
power  to  exclude  slavery  from  a Territory,  as  (hose  on  our 
side  contended,  and  still  contend  they  have  not,  then  they 
could  not  and  did  not  confer  it  upon  the  Territorial  Legis- 
latures. We  of  the  Sout'i  held  that  Congress  had  not  the 
power  to  exclude,  and  could  not  delegate  a power  they  did 
not  possess — also,  that  the  people  had  not  the  power  to 
exclude  under  the  Constitution,  and  therefore  the  mutual 
agreement  was  to  take  the  subject  out  of  Congress,  and 
leave  the  question  of  the  power  of  the  people  where  the 
Constitution  had  placed  it— with  the  courts.  This  is  the 
whole  of  it.  The  question  in  dispute  is  a judicial  one,  and 
no  act  of  Congress,  nor  any  resolution  of  anv  party  con- 
vention can  in  any  way  affect  it,  unless  we  first  abandon 
the  position  of  non-inter veution  by  Congress. 

But  it  seems  exceedingly  strange  to  me,  that  the  people 
of  the  South  should,  at  this  late  day,  begin  to  find  fault  with 
this  northern  construction,  as  it  is  termed — especially  since 
the  decision  of  the  Suprenje  Court  in  the  case  of  Dred  Scott. 
In  this  connection  I may  be  permitted  to  say  that  I have 
read  with  deep  interest  the  debates  of  the  Charleston  con- 
vention, and  particularly  the  able,  logical,  aud  eloquent 
speech  of  lion.  William  L.  Yancey,  of  Alabama.  It  was, 
decidedly,  the  strongest  argument  I have  seen  on  bis  side 
of  the  question.  But  its  greatest  power  was  shown  in  its 
complete  answer  to  itself.  Never  did  a man  with  greater 
clearness  demonstrate  that  “squatter  sovereignty,”  the  bug- 
bear of  the  day,  is  not  in  the  Kansas  bill,  all  that  has  been 
said  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding.  This  he  put  beyond 
the  power  of  refutation.  But  he  stopped  not  there;  he 
went  on,  and  by  reference  to  the  decision  of  the  Supreme 
Court  alluded  to,  he  showed  conclusively,  in  a most  pointed 
and  thrilling  climax,  that  this  most  frightful  doctrine  could 
not.  by  possibility,  be  in  it,  or  in  any  other  territorial  bill — 
that  it  is  a constitutional  impossibility.  With  the  same 
master-hand  he  showed  that  the  doctrine  of  “squatter  sov- 
ereignty” is  not  in  the  Cincinnati  platform;  then,  why 
should  we  of  the  South  now  complain  or  non-intervenUon, 
or  ask  a change  of  platform? 

What  else  have  we  to  do  but  to  insist  upon  our  allies  to 
stand  to  their  argeement?  Would  it  not  have  been  much 
more  natural  to  look  fur  flinching  on  their  side  than  on  ours  ? 
Why  should  we  desire  or  want  any  other  platform  of  prin- 
ciples than  that  adopted  at  Cincinnati?  If  those  who  stood 
with  us  on  it,  in  the  contest  of  1856,  are  willing  still  to  stand 
ou  it,  why  should  we  not  be  equally  willing?  For  my  life 
I cannot  see,  unless  we  are  determined  to  have  a quarrel 
with  the  North  anyhow  on  general  account.  If  so,  in  be- 
half of  common  sense,  let  us  put  it  upon  more  tenable 
grounds  1 These  are  abundant.  For  our  own  character's 
sake,  let  us  make  it  upon  the  aggressive  acts  of  our  enemies, 
rather  than  any  supposed  shortcomings  of  our  friends,  who 
have  stood  by  ns  so  steadfastly  in  so  many  constitutional 
struggles.  In  the  name  of  patriotism  and  honor,  let  us  not 
make  it  upon  a point  which  may  so  directly  subject  us  to 
the  charge  of  breach  of  plighted  faith.  Whatever  may  be- 
fall us,  let  us  ever  be  found,  by  friend  or  foe,  as  good  as  our 
word.  These  are  my  views,  frankly  and  earnestly  given. 

The  great  question  then  is,  shall  we  stand  by  our  prin- 
ciples, or  shall  we,  cutting  loose  from  our  moorings,  where 
we  have  been  saiely  anchored  so  many  years,  launch  out 
again  into  unknown  seas,  upon  new  and  perilous  adven- 
tures, under  the  guide  and  pilotage  of  those  who  prove 
themselves  to  have  no  more  fixedness  of  purpose,  or  sta- 
bility as  to  objects  or  policy,  than  the  shifting  winds  by 


which  we  shall  be  driven?  Let  this  question  be  decide 
by  the  convention,  and  decided  with  that  wisdom,  coolnes 
and  forecast  which  become  statesmen  and  patriots.  ^ As  f< 
myself,  I can  say,  whatever  may  be  the  course  of  futu: 
events,  my  judgment  in  this  crisis  is,  that  we  should  star 
by  our  principles  “ through  woe”  as  well  as  “ through  weal 
and  maintain  them  in  good  faith,  now  and  always,  if  ne( 
be,  until  they,  we,  and  the  Republic  perish  together  in 
common  ruin.  I see  no  injury  that  can  possibly  arise  to1 
from  them — not  even  if  the  constitutional  impossibility 
their  containing  “squatter  sovereignty”  did  not  exist, 
has  been  conclusively  demonstrated.  For,  if  it  did  exi 
in  them,  and  were  all  that  its  most  ardent  advocates  clai 
for  it,  no  serious  practical  danger  to  us  could  result  from  ! 

Even  according  to  their  doctrine,  we  have  the  unr 
stricted  right  cYexpansion  to  the  extent  of  populatio 
They  hold  that  slaver)*  can  and  will  go,  under  its  operatio 
wherever  the  people  want  it.  Squatters  carried  it  to  Te 
nesssee,  Kentucky,  Missouri,  Alabama,  Mississippi,  ai 
Arkansas,  Avithout  any  laAv  to  protect  it,  and  to  Tex 
against  a law  prohibiting  it,  and  they  will  carry  it  to 


countries  where  climate,  soil,  production,  and  populati- 
These  are  the  natural  laws  that  will  rcgulh 


will  alloAV.  These  are  the  natural  laws  that  will  rcgulh 
it  under  non-intervention , according  to  their  constructs 
and  no  act  of  Congress  can  carry  it  into  any  Territo 
against  these  laws,  any  more  than  it  could  make  the  riv<  gust 
run  to  the  mountains,  instead  of  the  sea.  If  avc  have  n ^ 


enough  of  the  right  sort  of  population  to  compete  long 

. -J  4-T-.  i Vv  ..  XT  ^ *-  T . - — nl  « n i n T*  n A«.r  ^Pavi.I  f n 1 1 


with  the  North  in  the  colonization  of  neAV  Territories  a 
States,  this  deficiency  can  never  be  supplied  by  any  su  tail; 
act  of  Congress  as  that  now  asked  for.  Tiie  attempt  wojj  • 
be  ? s vain  as  that  of  Xerxes  to  control  the  waters  of  t ,‘b 
Hellespont  by  whipping  them  in  his  rage. 

The  times,  as  you  intimate,  do  indeed  portend  evil.  B 
L have  no  fears  for  the  institution  of  slavery,  either  in  t [joa 
Union  or  out  of  it,  if  our  people  are  but  true  to  themsel  vc  > 
true,  stable,  and  loyal  to  fixed  principles  and  settled  polic  . 
and  if  they  are  not  thus  true,  I have  little  hope  of  anyth!  decii 
good,  whether  the  present  Union  lasts  or  a new  one 
formed.  There  is,  in  my  judgment,  nothing  to  fear  fr<  , 
the  “irrepressible  conflict,”  of  which  we  hear  so  itmi  11 
Slavery  rests  upon  great  truths,  which  can  never  be  si  beet 
cessfnliy  assailed  by  reason  or  argument.  It  has  gro' 


stronger  in  the  minds  of  men  the  more  it  has  been  discu6S< 


I fin 


and  it  will  still  groAV  stronger  as  the  discussion  procee 
and  time  rolls  on.  Truth  is  omnipotent,  and  must  prev;  see  [ 
We  have  only  to  maintain  the  truth  with  firmness,  a JJ 
wield  it  aright.  Our  system  rests  upon  an  impregnable  1 
sis,  that  can  and  will  defy  all  assaults  from  Avithout.  1 


greatest  danger.  We  have  grown  luxuriant  in  the  exl 


Iha!  ii 


beranees  of  our  well-being  and  unparalleled  prosperity.  cj£,m 
There  is  a tendency  everyAvhere,  not  only  at  the  Nor 0 ^ 
but  at  the  South,  to  strife,  dissension,  disorder,  and  i uona 
archy.  It  is  against  this  tendency  that  the  sober-mint  Ml 
and  reflecting  inen  everywhere  should  ooav  be  called  uj 
to  guard.  , . 

My  opinion,  then,  is,  that  delegtaes  ought  to  be  sent 01  l,)i 
the  adjourned  convention  at  Baltimore.  The  demand  mi  have 
at  Charleston  b)r  the  seceders  ought  not  to  be  insisted  up  an,}  c 
Harmony  being  restored  on  this  point,  a nomination  i v . 
doubtless  be  made  of  some  man  Avhom  the  party  evej111^' 
where  can  support,  with  the  same  zeal  and  the  same  ar  Deni;, 
with  which  they  entered  and  waged  t he  contest  in  11  olutio 
when  the  same  principles  were  involved.  i , 

If,  in  this,  there  be  a failure,  let  the  responsibility  “p1 
rest  upon  us.  Let  our  hands  be  clear  of  all  blame.  ' 
there  be  no  cause  for  casting  censure  at  our  door.  If  States 
the  end,  the  great  national  Democratic  party — the  str  _ i . , 
ligament,  which  has  so  long  bound  and  held  the  Union.  ‘ ’ 
gether,  shaped  its  policy  and  controlled  its  destinies,  been] 
to  which  Ave  have  so  often  looked  with  a hope  that  selc  v/iatt 


failed,  as  the  only  party  North  on  which  to  rely  in  the  n ^ 


trying  hours  when  constitutional  rights  were  in  peril, 
down — let  it  not  be  said  to  us,  in  the  inidst  of  the  disas  Cflr,,y; 
that  may  ensue,  “you  did  it!'1  In  any  and  every  ev  State  t 
let  not  the  reproach  of  Punic  faith  rest  upon  our  name.'  ^ , 
everything  else  has  to  go  down,  let  our  untarnished  ho  V , 
at  least,  survive  the  wreck.  ” ^ 

ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHEN!  reii??,,j 

thatv, 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  Mr.  Stephens  h as . giver  o0ll^ 
true,  veritable  history  of  the  compromise  mc0f  ^ 
ures  of  1850  and  of  the  Ivansas-Nebraeka  bill, 
understood  by  the  supporters  of  the  measure 
when  they7  were  passed.  Pie  has  stated  fairly  ( 
truly  the  points  of  difference  between  us,  wh 


points  were  to  be  left  to  the  courts  to  decide ; and 
be  has  said,  what  I think  he  was  bound  to  say  as 
a patriot  and  a Democrat,  that  the  Cincinnati 
platform  is  all  that  the  South  ought  to  ask  or  has 
a right  to  ask,  or  that  her  interest?  require  in  this 
emergency.  On  that  platform  the  party  can  re- 
main a unit,  and  present  an  invincible  and  irre- 
sistible front  to  the  Republican  or  Abolition  pha- 
lanx at  the  North.  So  certain  as  you  abandon 
non-intervention  and  substitute  intervention,  just 
so  certain  you  yield  a power  into  their  hands  that 

- will  sweep  the  Democratic  party  from  the  face 
of  the  globe. 

j , Sir,  I believe  that  the  safety,  the  peace,  the 

- highest  interests  of  this  country  require  the  pres- 

■ ervation  intact  of  the  Democratic  party  on  its  old 
I creed  and  its  old  platform.  Whenever  you  depart 

from  that  platform,  which  was  adopted  unani- 
' raously,  you  never  will  get  unanimity  in  the  form- 

■ ation  of  another.  The  only  objection  I have 

- heard  urged  against  that  platform  is  that  it  is 
susceptible  of  two  constructions,  when,  in  point 

. of  fact,  there  are  no  two  constructions — there  can 
be  none  on  any  one  of  the  political  issues  con- 
tained in  it.  The  only  difference  of  opinion  aris- 
ing out  of  that  platform  is  on  the  judicial  ques- 
tion, about  which  we  agreed  to  differ — which  we 
i never  did  decide;  because,  under  the  Constitu- 
tion,  no  tribunal  on  earth  but  the  Supreme  Court 
could  decide  it.  We  differ  only  as  to  what  the 
-j  decision  of  the  court  will  be;  not  as  to  whether 
: we  will  obey-  it  when  made.  How  can  you  de- 
. iermiue  that  question  by  a platform?  It  has 
: been  suggested  that  this  difficulty  was  all  to  be 

- beconciled  by  the  adoption  of  a resolution  which 
5 f find  in  the  papers  under  the  title  of  the  Tennes- 

,ee  platform.  Will  my  friend  read  it? 

Mr.  PUGH  read,  as  follows: 

“ Resolved , That  all  citizens  of  the  United  Slates  have  an 
x^nal  right  to  settle  with  riieir  property  in  the  Territories,  and 
r.hat  under  the  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court,  which  we  re 
cognize  as  an  exposition  of  the  Constitution,  neither  their  rights 
>f  person  or  property  can  be  destroyed  or  impaired  by  congres 
donal  or  territorial  legislation  ” . 

Mr.  DOUGLAS.  We  have  had  predictions 
that  the  party  was  to  be  reunited  by  the  adoption 
>f  iat  resolution.  The  only  objection  that  I 
rave  to  it  is  that  it  is  liable  to  two  constructions, 
ind  certainly  and  inevitably  will  receive  two, 
Ijlirectly  the  opposite  of  each  other,  and  each  will 
le  maintained  with  equal  pertinacity.  The  res- 
dution  contains,  in  my  opinion,  two  trueisms, 
Lind,  fairly  considered,  no  man  can  question  them. 
They  are:  first,  that  every  citizen  of  the  United 
itates  has  an  equal  right  in  the  Territories ; that 
vhatever  right  the  citizen  of  one  State  has,  may 
i>e  enjoyed  by  the  citizens  of  all  the  States;  that 
vhatever  property  the  citizen  of  one  State  mav 
arry  there,  the  citizens  of  all  the  States  may 
tarry  ; and  on  whatever  terms  the  citizens  of  one 
State  can  hold  it  and  have  it  protected,  the  citi- 
zens" of  all  States  can  hold  it  and  have  it  protect- 
ed, without  deciding  what  the  right  is,  which  still 
•euiains  for  decision.  The  secoud  proposition  is, 
hat  a right  of  person  or  property  secured  by  the 
Constitution  caunot  be  taken  away  either  by  act 
if  Congress  or  of  the  Territorial  Legislature, 
yho  ever  dreamed  that  either  Congress  or  a Ter- 
|Jitorial  Legislature,  or  any  other  legislative  body 


on  earth,  could  destroy  or  impair  any  right  guar- 
antied or  secured  by  the  Constitution?  No  man 
that  I know  of.  This  resolution  leaves  the  same 
point  open  that  remains  open  for  the  courts  under 
the  Cincinnati  platform,  and  under  the  Ivansas- 
Nebraska  bill.  My  objection  is  that  it  bears  upon 
its  face  the  evidence  that  if.  is  to  be  construed  in 
two  opposite  ways  in  the  different  sections  of  the 
Union.  I want  no  double  dealing  or  double  con- 
struction. I am  willing  to  stand  on  the  Cincin- 
nati platform,  as  you  agreed  to  it,  and  as  it  was 
reenacted  at  Charleston.  I will  give  it  the  same 
construction  I have  always  given  to  it;  you  may 
give  it  yours.  We  differ  only  on  a law  point; 
let  the  court  decide  that,  and  I only  ask  that  you 
will  bow  to  the  decision  of  the  court  with  the 
same  submission  that  I shall,  and  carry  it  out 
with  the  same  good  faith.  I want  no  new  issue. 

[ want  no  new  test.  I will  make  none  on  you, 
and  I will  permit  you  to  make  none  on  me. 

We  are  told  that  the  party  must  be  preserved. 
I agree  that  the  best  interests  of  the  country  re- 
quire that  it  should  be  preserved  in  its  integrity. 
How  can  that  be  done,  except  by  abiding  by  its 
decisions?  The  party  has  pronounced  its  author- 
itative voice  on  the  very  points  at  issue  between 
you  and  me.  The  party  rejected  your  caucus 
platform  by  twenty-seven  majority  on  a fair  vote. 
The  party  affirmed  the  Cincinnati  platform  almost 
unanimously.  Hence  it  becomes  the  duty  of 
every  Democrat,  every  man  who  expects  to  re- 
main a Democrat,  to  acquiesce  in  the  decision  of 
the  party,  and  support  its  nomination  when  it 
shall  be  made.  In  ho  other  way  can  the  party 
be  united  or  preserved.  Can  you  preserve  the 
party  by  allowing  a minority  to  overrule  and 
dictate  to  the  majority  ? Is  the  party  to  be  pre- 
served by  abandoning  the  fundamental  articles 
of  its  creed,  and  adopting  intervention  in  lieu  of 
non  intervention?  Shall  the  majority  surrender 
to  the  minority?  Will  that  re=tore  harmony? 
Will  that  produce  fraternity?  Suppose  that  the 
majority  should  surrender  to  you,  the  minority — 
should  justify  the  seceders  and  bolters — will  that 
reunite  us?  You  tell  us  that  if  we  do  this,  you 
will  grant  no  quarter  on  the  point  in  dispute. 
The  test  is  to  be  kept,  up  by  the  minority  against 
the  majority;  by  bolters  against  the  regular  or- 
ganization; by  seceders  against  those  whose  po- 
litical fidelity  would  not  permit  them  to  bolt; 
and  the  regular  organization  is  required  to  sur- 
render at  discretion  to  the  seceders,  with  notice 
served,  that  no  “ quarter”  is  to  be  granted.  That 
is  the  conciliation  that  is  tendered!  That  is  the 
olive  branch  that  is  extended  to  us!  You  will 
permit  us  to  vote  for  your  candidate,  if  we  will 
only  allow  a minority  to  nominate  him  ! You 
will  permit  us  to  vote  for  a candidate  on  a plat- 
form that  the  minority  dictates  and  the  majority 
has  rejected ! 

Suppose  the  minority  should  get  their  platform 
and  candidate,  and  they  should  go  before  the 
country  appealing  to  the  Democratic  masses  to 
rally  in  their  majesty  around  the  Democratic  or- 
ganization, and  support  its  nominations — a mi- 
nority candidate  forced  on  the  majority’,  asking 
our  votes,  with  notice,  “ if  you  vote  for  me  I will 
grant  no  quarter,  I will  put  you  to  the  sword ; 


32 


there  is  not  a man  of  you  that  is  fit  to  be  chair- 
man of  a committee,  or  a member  of  a Cabinet, 
or  a collector  of  a port,  a postmaster,  a light- 
house-keeper!” These  are  the  terms  of  concila- 
tion  extended  by  a minority  to  the  regular  or- 
ganization of  the  party.  Grant  no  quarter!  Big 
talk  for  seceders,  after  they  have  been  overruled. 

"VVhat  man  would  desire  your  nomination  on 
such  terms?  Who  would  be  mean  enough  to  ask 
and  expect  the  support  of  men  that  he  had  mark- 
ed as  victims  of  vengeance  so  soon  as  the  knife 
was  put  in  his  hands  by  them?  Who  would  de- 
grade himself  so  low  as  to  ask  or  accept  votes  on 
term?  so  disreputable? 

On  the  contrary,  sir,  we,  the  Democratic  par- 
ty, speaking  through  its  regular  organization, 
and  by  authority  of  the  party,  say  to  you,  erring 
men  as  you  are,  that  we  will  grant  quarter ; we 
submit  to  no  test,  and  make  none;  we  are  willing 
to  fight  the  battle  now  on  the  same  principles 
and  the  same  terms  that  we  have  fought  it  on 
since  1848;  on  the  same  platform,  and  with  the 
same  fraternal  feeling.  If  you  differ  from  us,  we 
recognize  your  right  to  differ  without  impairing 
your  political  standing,  so  long  as  you  remain  in 
the  regular  organization,  and  support  the  nomi- 
nees. I care  not  whether  you  agree  or  differ 
with  m'e  on  the  points  of  law  that  have  divided 
us.  If  you  should  happen  to  be  right,  and  I 
wrong,  it  would  not  prove  that  you  were  a bet- 
ter Democrat  than  I ; but  that  you  were  a better 
lawyer  than  I am,  so  far  as  that  one  branch  of 
law  is  concerned.  I should  not  have  much  pride 
of  opinion  on  the  point  of  law,  but  for  the  fact 
that  you  have  got  ih  the  habit  of  calling  me 
“Judge,”  (laughter;)  having  among  my  youthful 
indiscretions,  accepted  that  office  and  acquired 
the  title;  and  I do  claim  that,  with  that  title,  I 
have  a right  to  think  as  I please  on  a point  of 
law  until  the  court  decides  that  I am  wrong. 

Mr.  President,  I owe  an  apology  to  the  Senate 
for  detaining  them  so  long.  I present  my  pro- 
found acknowledgments  for  the  courtesy  and 
kindness  that  have  been  extended  to  me.  I 
would  not  have  claimed  so  much  of  your  time 
but  for  the  fact  that  I believe  that  the  principle 


involved  in  this  discussion  involves  the  fate  o 
the  American  Union.  Whenever  you  ineorporati 
intervention  by  Congress  into  the  Democrat! 
creed,  as  it  has  become  the  cardinal  principle  o 
the  Republican  creed,  you  will  make  two  section 
al  parties,  hostile  to  each  other,  divided  by  thi 
line  that  separates  the  free  from  the  slaveholdint 
States,  an^  present  a conflict  that  will  be  irre 
pressible,  and  will  never  cease  until  the  one  shal 
subdue  the  other,  or  they  shall  agree  to  divide 
in  order  that  they  may  live  in  peace.  God  gran' 
that  there  shall  never  be  another  sectional  parti 
in  the  United  States.  Why  cannot  we  live  to 
gether  in  peace  on  the  terms  that  have  bourn 
and  held  us  together  so  long?  Why  cannot  w. 
agree  on  this  great  principle  of  non-interventioi 
by  the  Federal  Government  with  the  local  am 
domestic  affairs  of  the  Territories,  excludim 
slavery  and  all  other  irritating  questions,  an< 
leaving  the  people  to  govern  themselves,  so  fa 
as  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  impose: 
no  limitation  upon  their  authority.  Upon  tha 
principle  there  can  be  peace.  Upon  that  princi 
pie  you  can  have  slavery  in  the  South  as  long  a 
you  want  it,  and  abolish  it  whenever  you  an 
tired  of  it.  On  that  principle  we  can  have  it  o: 
not,  as  our  interests,  our  prosperity,  our  owl 
sense  of  what  is  due  to  oursel  vee,  isktvll  procKjril^l 
On  that  principle,  you  on  the  Pacific  coast  cai 
shape  your  own  institutions  so  that  they  will  b> 
adapted  to  your  own  people.  On  that  principle 
there  can  be  peace  and  harmony  and  fraternity 
between  the  North  and  the  South,  the  East  ant 
the  West,  the  Pacific  and  the  Atlantic.  Win 
cannot  we  now  reaffirm  that  principle  as  we  dit 
in  1852?  Then,  the  Whig  party  adopted  it  as  i 
cardinal  article  in  their  creed,  and  so  did  the  De 
mocraej'.  Let  your  Whigs,  your  Democrats — al 
conservative  men  who  will  not  be  abolitionizet 
or  sectionalized — rally  under  the  good  old  ban 
ner  of  non-intervention,  so  that  the  Constitutioi 
may  be  maintained  inviolate,  and  the  Union  las 
forever.  Intervention,  North  or  South,  mean 
disunion ; non-intervention  promises  peace,  fra 
ternity,  and  perpetuity  to  the  UnioD,  and  to  al 
our  cherished  institutions. 


Printed  by  Lem.  Towees,  Washington,  D.  C.,  at  $2  per  hundred  copies. 


I , 


